Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Housing Tenders

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the procedure for tendering for local authority house building contracts in Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The tendering procedures are laid down in Welsh Office Circular 69/67; I will send the hon. Member a copy. They are designed broadly to ensure that value for money is obtained.

Mr. McBride: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, from 1st July, all Welsh local authorities will be required to advertise contracts worth £415,000 or more in the Journal of the EEC? Will he support

Swansea City Council in its opposition to this unwanted law? Will he understand that Welsh local authorities wish Welsh craftsmen to build Welsh houses for Welsh people without any inhibiting influences? Where does he stand on that?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I understand the hon. Member's concern about this, but the reasons in the circular to which I have referred have been well understood. With regard to the EEC point, my right hon. and learned Friend and I are very much aware of that.

Mr. George Thomas: The Ministers may be aware of it, but what are they going to do about it? Will the hon. Gentleman tell me that Welsh firms will have priority, in view of the state of our industry in Wales? Is he aware that there is considerable indignation that we have to advertise in the Common Market for people who may be undercutting our own firms?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we all do that the situation in the building industry in Wales at the moment is very overheated. He will not be suggesting that all building in Wales should be done by Welshmen. Many firms come from England and Scotland and certain firms may come from overseas. Naturally, on most occasions they will employ Welsh people to do these jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while we would like to give Welsh firms the work, what we


would desperately like in Pembrokeshire is to see any contracting firms able and willing to take on the desperately needed work that we have to give them? Therefore, we would welcome any firm, from wherever it might come, to do the work that we urgently need.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend is right. The situation in his constituency is as difficult as in any constituency in Wales with regard to overheating. It is a great problem to find the necessary builders to do the jobs at the moment in this time of boom.

Llantrisant New Town

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received his inspector's report of the public inquiry into the proposed Llantrisant New Town.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): It was received in the Welsh Office on 7th June. I am studying the report, which is very long, and I will publish it and announce my decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Rowlands: Is it the fact that the finding of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's inspector is not in favour of the new town? Will the Secretary of State now make the report available, whatever considerations and deliberations he might wish to have, so that local authorities whose future planning greatly depends on this report can then make it public? There is no reason why what the inspector has said should be an official secret.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the contents of the inspector's report before a decision is taken. An inspector's report by itself has no standing until I come to a conclusion on it. That is the reason why I refused to publish the report on the Cardiff hook road. Certainly, I hope to come to a conclusion on this very long report as soon as possible.

Mr. Fred Evans: My hon. Friend's point is valid. Surely the Secretary of State must realise what an inhibiting factor this is on areas like those of my hon. Friend and myself, which are urgently in need of industrial development. Firms are reluctant to take decisions in view of what may be found in the Llantrisant inquiry report.

Mr. Thomas: I appreciate that it is important that a decision be taken as soon as possible, and, as I said, I intend to do so. But it is a long report, which took the inspector almost a year to prepare. I intend to consider it carefully and, I hope, come to the right decision.

Mr. John: Has the Secretary of State also received the interlinked reports on the sewage works and the line of the M4 from Llantrisant? If so, will he consider giving priority to these considerations, because in particular the sewage works is desperately needed to support the increase in population that will go to Llantrisant naturally?

Mr. Thomas: I expect to receive the associated reports on the M4 and the sewage disposal works shortly. It is probable that the three reports will be considered concurrently, but it is not possible at this stage to say when decisions will be made or in what order.

Ports

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Transport Docks Board about Welsh port prospects.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My office continues to keep in close touch with the port director and his staff, and I am fully informed of all developments.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the Newport docks are probably facing the greatest challenge in their history due to the shortsightedness of BSC in taking away the iron ore trade, and that they also expect a challenge from Bristol? Does he appreciate nevertheless that, due to efficient management and an excellent labour force, we are not pessimistic about the outcome, but will he take whatever steps are possible to help ensure the survival of the port?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly fully appreciate the importance of Newport part. The hon. Gentleman will know that the dock access road to the port is in the firm programme. I am happy to say that the port made a substantial profit last year.

Mr. Ellis: When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the report of the


conference held recently at St. Malo, attended by representatives of the peripheral areas of the Community, dealing amongst other things with the problems of maritime communication? If so, will he have the report published?

Mr. Thomas: I have not as yet received the report but I look forward to receiving it. I note what the hon. Member says.

Shotton Steelworks

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the decisions taken on the advice tendered by the task force set up to consider the consequences for Flint-shire of the rundown of steelmaking at Shotton.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make public his recommendations regarding the report of his Shotton Steelworks task force.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The task force has not yet completed its wide-ranging consultations. I expect to receive its final report before the end of the month. The Government's decisions will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.

Sir A. Myer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the process of demoralisation which set in with the announcement of the proposed rundown of steelmaking at Shotton is now accelerating dangerously? Does he not consider that there is now great urgency to announce at least four things: first, that there will be a massive injection of investment into the coking side at Shotton; second, that every incentive will be offered to new steel-using industry to come into the area; third, that we shall have a very early announcement of a decision on the Dee estuary scheme; and fourth, that there will be a massive road programme for North Wales?

Mr. Thomas: All those matters which have been referred to by my hon. Friend are matters which have been urged on the task force. The task force has had very wide-ranging consultations and is preparing its final report. As I say, I hope to receive that report shortly. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will pay particular attention not only to the recommendations of the task force

but to the submissions which have been made by all interested parties.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State please recommend special development area status for Deeside? Is not the problem of persuading new industries to come to Deeside not only an expensive but a world-wide problem, and would not that merit special Government financial aid? Finally, has the task force fully comprehended the attitude of the Shotton steel men towards the closure, namely, that they are unimpressed by the brochure produced by BSC which, they believe is lamentably inadequate as a case for ending steelmaking at Shotton?

Mr. Thomas: The task force has certainly received representations on Government assistance from a wide variety of interests, and it will he reporting on this issue in full in its final report to me.

Maendy and Brofiscun Quarries (Chemical Waste)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what instructions he has given regarding the investigation of the contents of the drums of chemicals at Maendy and Brofiscun quarries.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already re-received from Monsanto Limited a detailed list of material tipped. I have also asked the waste disposal firm concerned to provide any additional information it has of the materials deposited, to supplement that already available in the Welsh Office. I am maintaining close liaison with the local authorities which have the initial responsibility under the Public Health Act to investigate.

Mr. John: Does not the Secretary of State realise that in the New Scientist of 21st June a Welsh Office official is reported as saying that Welsh Office officials have not investigated the drums of chemicals on the site because it was not their job to do so? In view of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's environmental responsibility, which is a responsibility of his Department and not of local authorities, does he not agree that it is a wise precaution that any drums which are apparent on the site should be opened and examined to see that their contents are as described, when any necessary action can be taken?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly understand that people are concerned that everything possible should be done, but there are certain limits to my statutory powers. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under Part III of the Public Health Act local public health authorities have the responsibility to investigate accumulations or deposits which may be considered to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance and to take action if they think that is necessary. I am sure that they fully understand their responsibilities.

Mr. Alec Jones: In view of the wide circulation of stories and rumours concerning these two quarries, can the Secretary of State give an indication of the number of similiar sites in various parts of Wales and can he say whether he is taking any steps to check those as well?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. Investigations are being made throughout the whole of Wales to ascertain what tipping has taken place over the years. Local authorities were asked by me a long time ago to send in a report. Wide investigation is being made by Government Departments of the whole of the tipping problem which may exist throughout the United Kingdom.

Heads of the Valleys (Development)

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to report on proposals put to him by the Heads of the Valleys authorities for the industrial development of the Heads of the Valleys area.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The views of the standing conference of the Heads of the Valleys authorities are being taken into account by the Ebbw Vale task force which will be reporting to me shortly, and also in connection with the Heads of the Valleys study.

Mr. Probert: In view of the apparent indifference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department about doing anything positive over the years for this area, and in view of the euphoria we heard last week by his right hon. Friend about what the EEC can do and will do for central and peripheral areas, will he consider seeking the aid of the EEC to treat the area as a special area, as is now being considered by the Clyde Port Authority for the Hunterston area?

Mr. Thomas: The question of EEC aid or regional aid is in process of being negotiated at the moment. I certainly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about Government indifference to this area. He knows that I initiated this Heads of the Valleys study. A report was put in by my office a year ago, and it was not until April that we received the recommendations and suggestions of the local authorities. At the moment, I think it will be agreed that it is right that the task force for Ebbw Vale should continue its investigations and make the necessary representations.

Mr. Rowlands: More specifically, will the Secretary of State appreciate that for the industrial land reclamation in this area, as proposed by the task force and as shown in the Heads of the Valleys study, £3 million a year is needed to clear the thousands of acres of derelict land required for the development? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorse this specific proposal so that we can get on with the job?

Mr. Thomas: It will be agreed, I think, that the advance in the clearance of derelict land in this area over the last two or three years has been quite remarkable. It is my wish that this should continue, because I agree that this is extremely important.

Planning Appeals

Mr. John Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what delays are being experienced in the setting of dates for appeals on planning matters.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: At present the average time between lodging a planning appeal and inquiry is about 40 weeks.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that appellants are able to persuade his office that the dates fixed for hearing are unsuitable and that while this practice is repeated they are able to get extra time to carry out the activities which are objected to? Without expecting the Minister to comment on a particular case, may I ask him whether he is aware that in one case in the Port Talbot area there are allegations of serious traffic implications where the enforcement notice was authorised and served on 19th January 1972, the first date of hearing was 2nd January 1973, this was put off until 3rd


April 1973 and there is still no date? Does not this make nonsense of effective planning machinery? Do we have to wait for a serious accident before this matter is determined?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing this particular case to my attention. If he will let me have details, I shall look into it immediately.

Mr. Elysian Morgan: What is the average period of time between the hearing of an oral appeal and the publication of the Minister's decision? Is not the continuous delay in these matters directly attributable to the fact that there is in the Welsh Office no third Minister to whom it was formerly traditional to delegate such day-to-day matters?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: No. We find it possible to do more work in the Welsh Office with two Ministers than the Labour Party did with three.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is 14 weeks. I think that the reason for the delay is well known. It is that the number of appeals has grown from 651 in 1971 to 891 in 1972, and in 1973 appeals are coming in at the rate of 1,000 a year.

Mr. Morgan: That proves my case.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the Minister of State agree that 14 weeks is an unconscionably long time? Would not the situation be eased by the appointment of additional inspectors? Does not the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is the step we should now be taking?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The time lag is about the same in England. We are trying to increase the number of inspectors, and we are doing so. This is the bottleneck and not the one to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) referred.

Gelligaer Hospital (Closure)

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the future use of the site and buildings presently occupied by the hospital at Gelligaer which was originally

paid for by the ratepayers of the urban area and which is being closed by his decision.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The property is no longer required for hospital purposes and arrangements are in hand to dispose of it.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister accept, however, that an important matter of equity is involved? When Governments sequestrate assets paid for by ratepayers of local authorities in pursuit of Government policy and a subsequent Government find that these assets are surplus to requirements, should not the assets be returned unconditionally to the ratepayers who originally paid for them, to be disposed or by the local authority as it sees fit? If the Minister has no powers to do this, will he press his Government to legislate in order that equity may be achieved?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It has always been the policy when disposing of surplus hospital land to sell at the best price reasonably obtainable. I understand that the local authorities concerned are not wishful to put either of these buildings to any particular use.

Government Offices (Dispersal)

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Welsh Council to study the Hardman Report as it affects Wales and advise him as to its conclusions on it.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I would welcome the views of all interested parties on this report.

Mr. Hughes: That does not answer my Question. Is the Minister proposing to refer this matter to the Welsh Council? Will he say whether he is satisfied with the recommendations of the Hardman Report? Is he aware that the report was received with great disappointment in Wales, particularly in North Wales, bearing in mind that the Labour Government were able to disperse 11,000 jobs to Wales in a comparatively short period? Is the Minister aware that a few hundred jobs in North Wales, where unemployment is extraordinarily high, would be a great easement in that area? Will he impress that point upon his right hon. Friends in the Government?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I was certainly attempting to answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question. What I was saying was that the Government welcome the comments of all interested bodies, including the Welsh Council, if they wish to make observations on the report. Final decisions on the recommendations will not be made until there has been an opportunity for all the comments to be considered.
As to North Wales, I am fully aware of the claims of North Wales to a share in dispersal. The reasons for Sir Henry coming to his recommendations are fully set out in his report. North Wales will now have a further opportunity to express its views on the matter.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency, so far from receiving anything from the Hardman Report, despite our obvious attractions as an area of dispersion, we are, on the contrary, threatened with a loss of Civil Service jobs if the proposal to close Kimmel Camp goes ahead?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am aware of the matter which my hon. Friend raises. I am also aware of the reports made by Flintshire on that matter.

Mr. George Thomas: We realise that the Secretary of State is aware of all these things, but once again we must ask whether he will make it clear to his colleagues in the Government that this report is just not good enough to meet the problems of Wales. The fact that 11,000 jobs, as recommended in the report, would go to the overcrowded South-East while only 4,000 jobs would come to Wales is a disgrace. Cardiff itself could gobble up those 4,000 jobs and still be in need of more jobs.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The recommendation of the Hardman Report is that 5,500 jobs should be allocated to Wales and to the Cardiff-Newport area.
I do not wish to comment on the details of the report until everyone has had the opportunity of expressing his views and the Government have considered the matter. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to public debate on dispersal. I am firmly convinced that in the future Wales will do well as a location for dispersal staff.

South Wales Docks (Road Access)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Transport Docks Board and with Welsh highway authorities about the need for improving trunk roads serving and leading to the South Wales docks.

Mr. Peter Thomas: None, Sir, but my officials will shortly be meeting representatives of the docks board and the local highway authorities to discuss road access to Barry docks.

Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that last sentence. Is he aware that in Barry the local borough council, the docks manager and many organisations have tried hard, not without some success, to get new industry and docks trade but have been sadly hampered by the very poor road communications which serve the port?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I know that there is local concern about the adequacy of road access to Barry docks. I am pleased that my office has been invited to participate in a discussion with the docks board and the local authority.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that his optimistic statements about the future of South Wales ports are invariably followed by support for measures which can only undermine them—for example, the port of Bristol expansion scheme? Does he not agree that, if the South Wales ports are to have any long-term future, a massive rescue operation is necessary?

Mr. Thomas: Any statement that I make about South Wales ports which can be construed as optimistic is made because I am echoing the views of the British Transport Docks Board.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish the headquarters of the Welsh National Water Authority in one of the towns of Mid-Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. And learned Member for


Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on 21st February 1972. I hope to make an announcement shortly.—[Vol. 831, c. 192].

Mr. Roderick: Does not the Secretary of State agree that, as this area supplies so much of the water needed by the country, it would be only fair to establish the headquarters there? Does he not agree that that would be a contribution towards the growth towns policy—something that is long overdue from his Department in the past three years?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been considering all the relevant factors and that the claims of Mid-Wales will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Whether or not they are taken into account, the net result is that there have been no dispersal jobs from central Government to Mid-Wales during the last three years and that there is no dispersal planned in the foreseeable future. Is the Secretary of State willing to fight manfully in the Cabinet to put right this wrong?

Mr. Thomas: Any decision made will be one which I shall make alone. I shall not require the consent of my Cabinet colleagues.

Housing and Construction Industry

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Welsh Council to investigate and report on the housing and construction industry in Wales.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not aware of any report which could appropriately be submitted to the Welsh Council for its investigation. The Council does not, I understand, have any plans at present to carry out any study of this industry in Wales.

Mr. Edwards: Neither am I aware of reports. I am asking for the Welsh Council to report. Because of the acute shortage of building labour, which has already been referred to, local authorities and Government Departments are having great difficulty in getting firms to tender for desperately needed housing schemes and other construction works. Celtic Sea exploration will soon increase these

pressures and there is a great need to seek ways of overcoming these difficulties, whether by further training schemes, EEC participation or other methods.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I agree with my hon. Friend, as I said earlier in answer to another question, that there is a big problem. If he wishes to bring representatives of the councils which are under pressure to see me about the matter, I shall be happy to talk to them about it.

Mr. McBride: Is the Minister of State aware—perhaps he is not—that all matters of civil procurement of £1 million and above have to be advertised in the Journal of the EEC? What guidance has he given to those setting out tenders for contract? If he is not giving guidance to local authorities and other bodies will he tell the House and Wales why that is so? Lastly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, figuratively speaking, the Welsh Office has been caught flat-footed in its ignorance in its approach to these matters?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of claims. All I can say to him is that up to now we have not issued any specific instructions or advice to local authorities. No doubt there will be such instruction in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend, in co-operation with the Department of Employment, discuss with the employers' and employees' representatives the feasibility of expanding the training of skilled personnel in the building industry? Does he recognise that that is the main requirement in the whole of Wales at present?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister of State sure that he read the right answer'? Is he aware that it is only a fortnight since my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was advised by him that the Welsh Council was undertaking a study on housing and that it had been studying the position for months? Has he asked the Welsh Council to look into the reasons why this year we shall have the lowest figures for public housing in the Principality since 1946?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman poses a number of questions. With regard to his last question, he knows very well that it is not only the public sector which is important but also the private sector, which is doing extraordinarily well. My answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about the Welsh Council was correct.

Ebbw Vale Task Force

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his views on the recommendation of the Ebbw Vale task force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I expect to receive the final report from the Ebbw Vale task force later this month. The Government's decisions will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is a most disquieting answer which portrays a complete lack of urgency on his part and on the part of the task force which was set up seven months ago? Does he not realise that decisions are required immediately? Further, is he aware that the situation in North Monmouthshire is deteriorating and is now becoming desperate? Does he agree that he should not be side-tracked by the problem of Llantrisant when he considers the recommendations of the task force?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that my answer is disquieting. I think it has been generally accepted that the task force has been tackling the problem with a real sense of urgency. In view of the extent of the consultations, and of the need to study a wide range of infrastructural projects suggested by the local authorities, I do not think that the time which the task force has taken is unreasonable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in Monmouthshire as being desperate. He will appreciate that the task force will be recommending specific actions to give an economic boost to that area. Present trends are already encouraging. Unemployment in the area, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Abertillery, is currently 3·5 per

cent. compared with 5·2 per cent. a year ago and 3·9 per cent. in June 1970.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether his answer means that a statement will be made to the House on his views about the findings of the task force before Parliament rises for the recess? Further, as those in Ebbw Vale have to conduct the most difficult operation of trying to co-ordinate the arrangements or proposals of the British Steel Corporation, the Welsh Office and the other bodies concerned, will he give us the earliest possible indication of what the task force suggests so that we shall have his support in altering the proposed dates, among other things, which have been put forward by the British Steel Corporation?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I appreciate all the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), which are matters of concern in the Ebbw Vale area. He will know that the task force has been extremely anxious to finish its report with a sense of urgency. I cannot say that decisions will be taken on the final report before Parliament rises for the recess. I do not expect to receive the report until the end of this month. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will be considering the recommendations of the task force with the greatest care and with a sense of urgency.

Mr. Foot: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) that the report would be considered on 17th July.

Mr. Peter Thomas: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: That is not quite the same as the end of the month. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said 17th July. If I have that wrong I am sorry, but that was what I understood him to say. In that event, he should be able to make a statement to the House before Parliament rises. He must understand—and I think he does understand—that for three months afterwards there could be a serious and deteriorating situation if we were left in doubt about the position. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us, if possible, an affirmative reply. I urge him to say that he will make a statement to the


House on this matter, which is of paramount importance, before Parliament rises.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think I gave a date. I thought I said "later this month". I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to reach firm conclusions on recommendations of the task force. However, it would be wrong for me to give the hon. Gentleman any definite assurance that decisions will be taken before Parliament rises. I cannot give such an assurance today.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Small Firms (Data Collection)

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to implement the Bolton recommendation to minimise form filling and returns to Government Departments in view of the concern felt by small businessmen.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): After widespread consultation the Government have tabled a new clause for this year's Finance Bill which would exempt very many small firms from future statistical inquiries by allowing the Business Statistics Office to use data collected in the administration of value added tax. This is an important result of our continuous review of the form filling burdens on small businesses.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been campaigning about the problems which face small businesses will welcome very much what he has said? Will he say how many firms will benefit from what he has just announced? Further, will he continue his efforts to protect small businesses from unnecessary returns and form filling to other Government Departments?

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first observation. I know the particular interest which he takes in these matters. I can give him the assurance that I shall continue with the work to which he referred. Many thousands of firms will benefit. If this information had been available to the BSO before the issue of the questionnaire for the 1971 census of distribution, about 100,000 small re-

tailers would have been exempted from the census.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not a fact that the so-called saving is no saving at all? Is not any saving from not having to complete the statistical returns more than offset by the overwhelming burden of having to complete value added tax returns?

Mr. Grant: I do not accept that for one moment. This is one particular advantage which the Business Statistics Office can adopt by virtue of the VAT arrangements without introducing any new statistical inquiries to small firms which would otherwise be necessary. Such inquiries would have put a much greater burden on small firms. Happily that will not be the case now.

Mr. Jay: How many firms would benefit and have less work to do if VAT were abolished altogether?

Mr. Grant: That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman should address to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point I am making is that a large number of firms, including small firms, will be relieved of the burden of form filling, an aim which I should have thought the House supported, as a result of the proposals which I have announced today.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some information regarding the setting up of small business advisory units—particularly in Scotland—in line with the Bolton recommendations?

Mr. Grant: I hope that the small business centres will be open by the late summer or autumn and that they will be in action certainly by the autumn. A number of the appointments have been made and those appointed are carrying out some of their work in advance of the offices being set up.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet able to report on his discussions with the CBI and the TUC about regional employment premium.

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further discussions he has had with the CBI and


the TUC about the regional employment premium.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Discussions with the CBI and TUC have been held by officials of the Departments concerned. The next step will be to consider the position reached in those discussions.

Mr. Horam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the worst time to phase out a major regional aid like REP is in the middle of an economic boom, when we are getting labour shortages in the South-East and the Midlands? Should we not reinforce regional aid by restoring REP and restoring its value in real terms as in 1967? Is this on the agenda?

Mr. Grant: It has been possible to express all views on this subject in the discussions, and all views will be taken into consideration. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that we are doing what his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) advocated, that REP should be phased out after seven years.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that the European Commission appears in essence to have washed its hands of the scatter of British regional policies for at least the next 18 months, does this not enhance the case for thinking carefully before we add further to the capital intensive bias of our existing industrial incentives?

Mr. Grant: That is certainly a factor which will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among the other points which have been put up for discussion.

Mr. Radice: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the reason why my hon. Friends and others keep asking about the regional employment premium is that it is now recognised at all levels within industry, in academic circles and, above all, in the regions themselves, that the REP is an essential part of our regional policy? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will now reconsider his decision?

Mr. Grant: It is not surprising that those who are in receipt of £100 million worth of taxpayers' money should be concerned at its disappearance. The question is the method by which it is phased out.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the CBI, the TUC and the regions want to continue REP. The only people with any doubts are the Government. Why did they start this silly exercise in the first place, and when will it be stopped?

Mr. Grant: As one hon. Member has said, there are also those who pay this money who have to be taken into consideration. In addition, there are the views which were held by the party opposite when they were in government.

Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although he has been told by about four people that the regions want a continuation of this premium, I can assure him that those parts of the North West which are intermediate areas do not want a continuation of the premium?

Mr. Grant: My hon. and learned Friend has indicated that there is more than one view on this subject.

Mr. Varley: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the weekend reports that the European Commission will not subject Britain's regional policy to the transparency test and that, therefore, there is no European blockage to a continuation of REP?

Mr. Grant: I am not responsible for what appeared in the weekend Press, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the treaty which stops something like REP. Indeed, there is something like REP in Italy.

European Patents Office

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the siting of a European Patents Office.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As announced in the House on 29th June last year, the negotiating countries decided by a large majority to establish the seat of the office at Munich and a patent searching branch at The Hague. I do not expect any change in the views of the other countries when the decision comes up for confirmation at the diplomatic conference in September.—[Vol. 839, c. 406.]

Mr. Marten: As English is the most widely-spoken language and the British


Patents Office has the best expertise in the whole world, when the matter comes up for confirmation will my right hon. and learned Friend bid very hard to have the office in Britain on grounds of efficiency?

Sir G. Howe: I appreciate the importance of the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend. The fact is that this is a convention, which has not yet been completely negotiated, between 21 European countries which have had to take account of other matters including the existence of one institution at The Hague. The matter has to be considered in that forum. I would not wish to hold out any hopes that there is likely to be a change in the basic decision on the siting at Munich.

Sir G. de Freitas: Surely most of the patents are registered in this country. There should be no doubt about this, in view of the linguistic and other points which have been made.

Sir G. Howe: I appreciate the importance of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The linguistic factor is only one of the factors to be taken into account. The matter was fully considered before the decision was arrived at last year. This is a matter which is being taken in the context of negotiations by 21 countries extending far beyond the European Economic Community, the result of which will be to confer something of considerable value on British industry and inventors, namely, a patent available not only in the EEC but in other European countries. One must have regard to that advantage as well as to the fact mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skeet: If we are to lose the European Patents Office to Munich, will the Trade Mark Office come to the United Kingdom and be sited in London?

Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the Patents Office is not the only European institution likely to be set up. We expect to get a reasonable share of such institutions in this country. I note my hon. Friend's reference to the prospects of the European Trade Mark Office.

Exports and Imports

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will

make a statement on the export/import trade figures for May 1973.

Sir G. Howe: Imports in May were at a high level, but included large increases in the basic materials and industrial supplies necessary for our continued expansion. It is now also clear that the volume of exports this year has expanded faster than the volume of imports, and that we have achieved major increases in sales to our most important trading partners: the Community, the United States of America and Japan.

Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement that imports in May were at a high level could be classed as the understatement of the year? If these figures are so good and paint such a rosy picture for the future, can he explain why his right hon. Friend tells the Welsh Conservatives not to worry and stomps the country telling everyone that all is bright and rosy for the future? When can we expect a change in the pattern of exports, when the value of exports will exceed the value of imports and when the trade figures will again show a surplus?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member appears to cast a gloomy view over the whole scene. I would remind him and the House, in answer to his last point, that the volume of exports in the first four months of this year has increased by 12 per cent. over the last half of last year, which is exactly twice as much as the increase in volume of imports during the same period. The Government remain committed to this pattern of expansion of exports and I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should take such a gloomy view of our determination to continue that development.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that one month's trade figures are of no significance when the pound is floating and it is impossible to have a balance of payments shortage as a result? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure, however, that the pound continues to float so that the hon. Gentleman can continue to be wrong?

Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that one must look at the long run


of figures. The underlying important factor which the country should take seriously is the extent to which our prospects for a continued expansion, not only in volume of exports but in the advantage in trade, depend on our being able to maintain a steady pattern of growth and a reasonable containment of inflation in this country. That is the policy to which the Government are committed. We are on course for an expansion in prosperity, which hon. Members on both sides of the House so much want.

Mr. Mason: If we are looking at the long run of figures, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the visible trade deficit rose from £233 million to £363 million between the last quarter of 1972 and the first three months of this year? Invisibles are running at an annual deficit of £800 million. These figures, allied to the present raw material shortage, look like registering the biggest visible trade deficit since the war. Does not this show that this "phoney" boom is based on Britain living in debt? It is a boom on tick. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman visualise the Government doing to try to bring the visibles back into the black?

Sir G. Howe: I invite the House to note that, in assessing our balance of payments, one must take into account also the extent to which our invisible earnings are running, namely, at nearly £60 million a month. I invite the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to answer this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister should answer."] The country is entitled to know the Opposition's attitude on these things. Do they wish us to contain and restrain the prospect of expansion and growth? Do they wish us to cut back and restrain the growth now taking place? This is the question they must answer. The Government are committed, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to a policy of steady and sustained growth, with a view to raising living standards and maintaining full employment. If the Opposition wish us to change from that and stop the boom, let them tell the country.

Mr. Mason: In the same period as the Minister has taken, invisibles fell back from £197 million surplus to £174 million. Thus, the trend is the same in invisibles

as has already happened in visibles. So when do we expect the cut-back?

Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman still does not come back to the central point. Our invisible earnings are continuing high and substantial. Our balance of visible trade is being produced by an expanding volume in that trade. The right hon. Gentleman is possibly the last hon. Member entitled to ask, as he did a moment ago, when we shall get the nation out of debt. We have got it out of debt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—out of the debt into which his Government put it. We are determined to maintain a pattern of steady and sustained growth.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERJURY

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General what proposals he has to introduce legislation to amend the laws relating to perjury and to establish a tort of perjury which could enable a victim of perjured evidence to bring an action for damages.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): My noble Friend has at present no proposals to establish a tort of perjury. But offences against the administration of justice, which include perjury, are included in the Law Commission's work on codification of the criminal law. It would be premature to consider legislation in advance of its report.

Mr. Davis: Is not the Attorney-General being thoroughly complacent about this? Is he aware of the very clear report which has been published by Justice, after three years' consideration, which suggested categorically that a convicted person who has suffered severe prejudice as a result of perjured evidence should not only have an automatic right of appeal, with legal aid, but should have a right to clear his name and to obtain damages for the wrong which he sustained?

The Attorney-General: As I have said, the Law Commission is working on the law relating to perjury. On the question of perjury as a tort, the hon. Gentleman should consider the difficulty, in proving damage, of, for example, proving that the false evidence given was that on which


the criminal court came to a conclusion. It might even mean calling members of the jury or the judge to give evidence. Second, there is the link between a civil remedy for perjury and the question of absolute privilege. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the problem is not nearly as great as he suggests. In fact, at the most there are not more than about 50 cases each year in which a civil action for perjury could in any event be instituted.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Can the Attorney-General give an indication of when the Law Commission is expected to report on this matter? In the meantime, will he ensure that the Law Commission receives a copy of the report of Justice, which, if I may say so with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he slightly caricatured in his observations?

The Attorney-General: I have not caricatured the report of the Justice committee, but I have explained that there are considerable difficulties, as that committee itself recognised. I shall see that the Law Commission receives the report. The commission's working paper was produced in 1970. I cannot tell the House at this time when its final report will be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONCORDE TRADING, AMSTERDAM

Mr. Rost: asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the business activities in the United Kingdom of Concorde Trading, Amsterdam, Holland, with a view to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act.

The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has been aware of the activities of this concern since April of this year. Police inquiries have not so far established that the concern has any agents, or place of business, in the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, it has not been possible to institute any criminal proceedings.

Mr. Rost: I accept that answer, but is not this a direct way to get round the legislation—by using an address in Holland and claiming to be the largest importer of pornographic literature in the

world, in order to send material to people in this country on the mail order system, thus enabling these products to be imported? Either pornography is illegal or it is legal. We cannot have this sort of thing going on. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the matter again?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has correctly described what happens. This particular firm, with an address outside the jurisdiction, somehow obtains mail order lists and mails this material to people, completely unsolicited. I agree that it is wholly undesirable, but it is difficult to intercept such letters. If they could be intercepted, there might be offences under the Post Office Acts, and I assure my hon. Friend that, if this came to light, prosecutions would follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT OF PROTECTION

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Attorney-General if he will now hold an inquiry into the activities of the Court of Protection.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Attorney-General aware that there are many people who have had their life savings entrusted to this so-called Court of Protection and found to their dismay that those savings have been put into War Loan stock at 3½ per cent., which has had the effect of reducing their capital by two-thirds? Surely this calls for some sort of inquiry, does it not?

The Attorney-General: I know that there have been some cases—I think that the hon. Gentleman has one in mind—but I do not believe that it is correct to say that it has happened in very many cases.

Mr. Johnson: It has.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will give me further information about other cases, I shall certainly bring it to my noble Friend's attention.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Does that mean that the Government are not recommending 3½. per cent. War Loan?

The Attorney-General: It means that there will not at present be an inquiry into the Court of Protection.

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY SELECTION (WALES)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied that the present practice of the random selection of jurors in Welsh courts enables justice to be both seen and heard to be done.

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Attorney-General aware that in Wales, and for that matter in England, there are British citizens qualified to act as jurors who are not comfortably at home in the English language?

Mr. Greville Janner: There are some in this House.

Mr. Ellis: Is it the Government's view that the principle of random selection of jurors is, as claimed by Lord Justice Edmund Davies in his report to the Lord Chancellor, a supremely important principle? If so, how are British citizens whose command of English is not adequate to follow complicated legal testimony, and who fortuitously find themselves on juries, to play their part in making sure that justice is both seen and heard to be done?

The Attorney-General: On the general point, excluding the question of the Principality, sometimes there are persons eligible to sit on juries who do not have sufficient command of the English language, and in the interests of justice they have to be excluded. As regards the Principality, it is important to bear in mind what Lord Justice Edmund Davies said about the constitutional impropriety and undesirability of excluding perhaps 75 per cent. of the population from any particular case in the circumstances proposed. Not only would it be constitutionally improper, in my view, but it would, I should have thought, be quite impossible to achieve.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the Attorney-General take it that there will be general approval in Wales for what he has just said about the undesirability of dividing our people, and will he note that what Lord Justice Edmund Davies proposed regarding simultaneous translation has received general approval throughout the Principality?

The Attorney-General: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he said, simultaneous translation facilities are the answer to this problem, and I can tell the House that at Mold, Carmarthen and Cardiff arrangements are being made to equip the Crown courts with simultaneous translation facilities.

MOTORING LAW

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: 54. Mr. Hugh Jenkins asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the reluctance of some magistrates to convict in the case of motoring offences; and what action he is taking to bring about a more uniform application of the law.

The Attorney-General: I am not aware of reluctance on the part of magistrates to convict in cases involving motoring offences. My noble Friend is prepared to investigate any case of alleged bias or refusal to apply the law.

Mr. Jenkins: May I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a letter which appeared in The Times recently from Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen, a justice of the peace in the City, supported by other magistrates, to the effect that the enforcement of the speed limit on motorists was a matter which, apparently, they did not regard as of importance? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into this?

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly look into the point made by the hon. Member. Of course, my noble Friend cannot and will not direct magistrates on the circumstances in which they should convict.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Has there not been an increasing use of conferences of magistrates to try to move towards uniformity? Is that not a development which is proving somewhat helpful, at any rate in this domain?

The Attorney-General: That is so, and the more these conferences are held the greater will be the advantage to many magistrates. However, I am not aware of a general attitude of a refusal to convict.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is one of the afternoons when I have to take the chair at the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law I intend to take the business in the following order. First, I shall call the Private Notice Question, then Members desirous to take their seats, and after that the statement.

ORFORDNESS RADAR STATION

Mr. Mikardo: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the closure of Orfordness radar station which was announced last Friday.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Under an agreement made in 1967, RAF Orfordness, Suffolk, has been the location for a joint programme of long-range radio propagation research by the United States Air Force in cooperation with United Kingdom authorities.
Since this programme started, new technical and scientific studies conducted in the United States have been more effective. In the light of this, it was decided that a further programme at RAF Orfordness could not be justified and, consequently, that the U.S. Air Force would not renew the contract with RCA Limited for the technical maintenance of the equipment as from 30th June 1973.
The British civilian employees of RCA Limited have been given one month's notice, until the end of July 1973. Urgent consideration is being given to the future of the site and the future employment of the British civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment. Work on running down the installation is likely to last a further three or four months, and some of the personnel will be needed for that period.
The United Kingdom capital contribution over the whole of the programme has amounted to £1·4 million. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have shared in the running costs, and our annual contribution has risen to a maximum of some £250,000 over the last 12 months.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of his hon. and right hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters have said that people should not be declared redundant without consultation and without the longest possible notice? In view of that, how does he justify an announcement at 2 o'clock on Friday afternoon that some hundreds of people, including 100 or so high-level scientists and technicians, are to be out of work from midnight a day and a half later?
After the rundown, will this £34 million worth of sophisticated equipment be left untended to rust? Not least important, why did the Minister think it right to make this announcement by way of a Press statement at 2 o'clock on Friday instead of treating the House to the courtesy of a statement in the House, where he could have been questioned on the matter?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course, it is always a matter for regret when employees do not receive as much notice as they would like or expect. Perhaps I may explain why these events have taken place. The United States Government were anxious for contractual reasons to announce their decision before 30th June, and as they were by far the larger of the two parties their view naturally prevailed. We learnt of their intentions on 18th June, and we had to make a number of decisions, including, for instance, whether we should continue with the installation on our own. Also, we had hoped in our announcement to clarify such important matters as the future of the site, which obviously will affect some of the employees, perhaps a great many of them, but that was not possible.
We could not make our announcement before the Americans, who have paid by far the greater part of the cost, had made theirs. We thought that this was primarily a matter between the United States Government and the company, and I do not consider that anyone could claim that we have tried to conceal these things from the country. The hon. Member referred to a figure of £34 million, but I can assure him that is wildly inflated. The future maintenance of the equipment is a matter for the United States Government because they paid for all of it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the unilateral decision by the Americans not to renew the contract will not have any degrading effect on the air defence or other operational capabilities of the United Kingdom Armed Services?

Mr. Gilmour: I can confirm that.

Mr. John Morris: If this was a contractual matter, were we not partners in the establishment, and should we not therefore, have taken part in the ultimate decision? Was any Minister in the Ministry of Defence aware that this announcement was being made on a Friday afternoon? If so, would not a matter of this significance on British soil concerning British technicians and some British money invested in it have merited the courtesy of a statement in the House, even by a written answer?
Has not a totally different procedure been adopted here compared with when a British research station is vacated, and have not the staff been shoddily treated? As partners in the project, do the Government approve of what has happened? Since our paramount concern must be for British defence, what is the effect of this decision on our defence, and will the right hon. Gentleman remove any grounds for fear that British security has been weakened?

Mr. Gilmour: I have already answered the last two of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions. There are no grounds for thinking that British security has been worsened. This was a contract entered into by the Labour Government. I have explained why we made the announcement as we did. Perhaps that procedure would not be invariably right but it seemed right in the circumstances, and we never tried to conceal it from the country. This was a contractual matter, and the skilled employees were employed by RCA Limited on behalf of the United States Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the greatest concentration of scientific equipment and manpower in Britain located at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, and will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the surplus equipment can be absorbed at Malvern and, having regard to the rationalisation of the Royal Radar Establishment as announced in the Defence

White Paper, whether any redundant staff could not easily be absorbed into other radar establishments in the United Kingdom

Mr. Gilmour: Of course, there is a great concentration of scientific equipment and expertise at Malvern. I doubt whether any of the equipment will be absorbed there because the establishment is already well equipped and the equipment at Orfordness belongs to the United States Government. It is for them to decide where it goes.
As for redundancies, it may be that some employees can be absorbed in Malvern and elsewhere, but because of the short notice we are not able to make a definitive statement about where they will go.

Mr. Pardoe: What the right lion. Gentleman said is disgraceful. It is not simply a question of the notice that people would like; it is a question of entitlement. Does the Minister not think the Government should set a decent example over notice? Will he clear up the point about the larger of the two partners? Surely the most important and significant partner is the partner on whose soil the investment stands. If the Minister is to state a new Government doctrine that because the Americans have large investments in something here they can dictate the terms, it is a sorry outlook for North Sea oil and for all the other American investments in this country.

Mr. Gilmour: This matter does not merit that sort of tone. If the hon. Member is referring to entitlement, what I have said has gone beyond strict entitlement. These employees have been given what they are entitled to. However, I agree that the Government should set an example when possible. The House will agree that the Ministry of Defence is a good employer and has been so under both Governments, and that it has a record of which we are proud. I have told the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) why this announcement took place in the way that it did.

Mr. John Morris: Since the British Government were a partner in the agreement, does the right hon. Gentleman approve of this method of treating employees? Had they not a right to be


consulted, as employees are when British defence stations are affected?

Mr. Gilmour: There is something in that, but, if the right hon. Gentleman thought that, the Labour Government should have altered the terms of the contractual arrangement.

Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says that this establishment will not be missed. In that case, what on earth was its value in the first place?

Mr. Gilmour: That again is a matter for the technical judgment of the last Government, with which, I would add, I do not quarrel.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Frank Hatton, Esq., for Manchester Exchange.

EEC MINISTERIAL MEETINGS

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the main matters considered in the Council of the European Communities since I last reported to the House on 23rd May.
There have been in all five meetings of the Council—two of Foreign Ministers, two of Agricultural Ministers, and one of Finance Ministers. A meeting of Transport Ministers planned for 25th-26th June was cancelled.
The Council has made further progress in the work arising from the decisions of the European Summit Conference of October 1972.
At the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 25th-26th June, agreement was reached on a document setting out an overall Community approach to forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. The Foreign Ministers also made substantial progress towards agreement on the Community's approach to negotiations with Spain, Israel and the Mahgreb in the context of the Community's policy towards the countries of the Mediterranean following decisions taken by the Agricultural Ministers on 18th-19th June on the possible agricultural content of such a policy.
The Council has discussed further the Community's future relations with the developing countries of the Commonwealth and countries already associated with the Community under the Arusha and Yaounde Conventions. These developing countries have been invited to an opening conference on 25th-26th July at which the Community will give a broad outline of its proposals on the form of a new association agreement. The proposals will be subject to further discussion in the Council in July on the basis of ideas put forward by the Commission.
The Council has continued its consideration of a Community policy on development co-operation on a world-wide scale.
The Council has agreed that the provisional location of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund shall be in Luxembourg subject to certain conditions, including a review by 30th June 1975.
The Community Finance Ministers, meeting on 28th June, discussed the current economic situation and the continuing need for action on a Community scale against inflation. They agreed that this was the most serious economic problem facing the Community and adopted a resolution setting out the determination of all member countries to pursue policies aimed at slowing down the rate of increase of prices.
The Finance Ministers also discussed a report by the Commission on the second stage of economic and monetary union, which is due to come into effect on 1st January 1974. The Council reaffirmed the Community's commitment to this move and agreed that there should be further detailed technical study of the Commission's proposals for the second stage preparatory to the subject being considered again in the Council later in the year. The Commission also gave a brief oral account of its reports on reserve pooling and short-term monetary management; these will be discussed at the next meeting.
I now turn to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession.
As the House knows, under the terms of this Article, the Commission was required to supplement by 1st July its communication of 23rd June 1971, dealing with central and peripheral areas, in


a manner which took account of the enlargement of the Community and placed all the member States in the same position over the arrangements for coordination of regional aids in the Community.
At its meeting on 27th June the Commission reached an agreement for this purpose. The effect is that the central areas of the United Kingdom have been defined as our non-assisted areas and our intermediate areas. The precise classification of the remaining areas of the United Kingdom has been held in abeyance pending a major Community-wide review to be carried out by the Commission. Its aim is to determine by 31st December 1974 a more complete and detailed system than that communicated in 1971. This would take account of the variety of different regional problems of the enlarged Community.
Such an intention is wholly welcome to us as contributing in a more sophisticated way to the restraint of excessive bidding and counter-bidding between member States and even regions for mobile investment projects. As is known, Her Majesty's Government's view in this matter is shared by both the TUC and the CBI.
Meanwhile, those areas of the United Kingdom not classified as central will continue to be treated as at present. We shall wish, of course, to keep the Commission informed of the aid we give in respect of major projects. For our central areas, the standard aid will be well within the 20 per cent. authorised.
The Commission has also told us that the present arrangements already allow of higher levels of support being acceptable if cases of special difficulty arise, and in particular it has given us assurances as to measures we might consider necessary to relieve the consequences of major steel redundancies in the intermediate areas.
The outcome of these discussions is wholly satisfactory.

Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I think he is rather more easily satisfied, judging by his last remarks, than are the Opposition by the results of these wide-ranging negotiations.
First, is it not the case that, in the Article 154 negotiations, the intermediate areas of Britain are now to be classified as central areas and subject, therefore, to the limitations in the extent and quality of aid which goes with the definition, but that the British development areas and special development areas have deliberately not been classified as Community peripheral areas—in other words, as the statement says, the matter has been put into abeyance and is to be decided in the next 18 months? In short, I suggest that on this matter we have won, as it were, at best a reprieve.
Since the matter was strongly debated inside the Commission itself and there is no doubt that political pressures from the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government played a part in the results, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that long before a decision is finally taken the situation is fully reported and debated again in this House?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to economic and monetary union. Is he really asking us to believe that the second stage of such a union is still scheduled for 1st January 1974? His statement immediately follows a further and unilateral float of the German mark, although it has been re-pegged 5½ per cent. higher up, with the resulting confusion that that will have on the common agricultural policy, and, indeed, with the other obstacles it presents to economic and monetary union. Does the right hon. Gentleman really wish to go ahead with economic and monetary union when, as I understand it, the first aim of Her Majesty's Government is to retain sufficient freedom to continue to float the £and to do their utmost to sustain growth policies in this country?
Turning to the GATT negotiations, are we to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is really satisfied with the negotiating position finally adopted by the Community towards GATT? Is it not the case that the draft finally agreed at this meeting is significantly different from the one presented as recently as April to the Council of Ministers, and that this new draft makes it absolutely plain that no major feature of the CAP is up for negotiation at all and that it is not the aim of the Community to get rid of the common external tariff? In this context of future trade, is it really sensible to press so far


ahead with what looks like a new Mediterranean free trade area in advance of these multilateral GATT talks which are shortly to take place?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm and make quite clear that in the context of the Commonwealth negotiations these are between the "associables" and the "associated" and are quite separate from and will in no way interfere with the separate negotiations for renewal of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which must begin shortly?
Finally, given the wide range of this report, will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure that adequate time is given to debate these important and disparate subjects before the recess?

Mr. Davies: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has got the Article 154 question wrong. The truth is that from this country's point of view there is every interest in having an arrangement which makes a proper distinction between the individual regions and the individual regional problems of the Community as a whole. The 1971 communication dealt in a fairly rough-hewn way with this problem, dividing between central and peripheral areas and based on very different criteria from those which subsist in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely trying to persuade me, which he would not succeed in doing, that we would have been better advised to have settled for some arrangement which maintained that division? I can assure him that all the evidence leads me to a quite contrary conclusion. When he pours cold water, as he likes to do, on these matters, the fact is that he is pouring cold water on issues which are of primary importance to us. The interests of our country lie squarely along the line I have indicated.
The right hon. Gentleman posed a fairly doubtful, cynical and sardonic question about the second stage of EMU. Does he realise that this second stage comprises not just an approach to monetary unity but things which are of categoric importance to the country? The whole approach to an effective Community regional and social policy is desirable from our point of view and absolutely necessary to pursue. Again, in seeking to try to lead people's minds into thinking that we are dealing with some-

thing which is damaging he is doing no service to the country as a whole.
Turning to GATT, I can only say that I do riot dissent at all from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the paper which ultimately emerged from the discussions was substantially different from the original draft. I do not think it was substantially worse. It was a perfectly satisfactory basis for the opening of these talks. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that practically all proposals from the Commission are subject to substantial transformation as a result of discussion in the Council. It is proper that they should be. The right hon. Gentleman is constantly pressing for this House to be heard. I was glad to hear him say that the pressure of the House had been recognised as a force. He is constantly complaining that the House exercises no pressure. I find it difficult to understand the contradictions in what he has to say, but the fact is that the House does exert pressure on Ministers and on the Council and the result is not unsatisfactory.
It is desirable that there should be broad arrangements with the Mediterranean free trade area. The right hon. Gentleman does this country less than justice in failing to realise that we have the greatest interest in trade with those countries. We have every interest in pursuing this.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a positive question about sugar in connection with the "associable" and "associated" countries. I gather that the question of sugar will be specifically dealt with and is comprised within the broad framework of the arrangements under which an invitation has been put out to "associables" and "associated" countries for a meeting at the end of this month.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any assurances were given as to when the United Kingdom might join the joint float? Can he also say what is the point of maintaining a European "snake" experiment if frequent changes are to be made within that snake? Since this is the sixth revaluation of the deutschemark since 1969, is it not now apparent that any attempt to integrate exchange rates without first harmonising basic economic policies will be self-defeating?

Mr. Davies: The object of the revaluation of the deutschemark was that Germany should remain within the joint float. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that the Community countries consider it to be a valuable and useful monetary proposition. Although the deutschemark has been successively revalued as time has gone on, it is undoubtedly the case that the whole evolution of economic monetary union, as I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), is a long process, which involves much more than simple monetary union. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it is the purpose of the Community—this has been constantly stressed—that the whole of the development in this area should be a parallel development to economic and monetary activity and not solely devoted to monetary union.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a question of "so far so good" about the decision on the regional areas? Does he appreciate that there will be a profound sense of relief, if only temporary, in the South-West development area? To get the record straight, can he say what would be lost if the worst were to happen? What is the percentage value comparable with the 20 per cent. in the highest rated development area in the United Kingdom? Can he also say whether the British Government are pressing for more areas in the new regional policy for Europe than simply central and peripheral areas in view of our own need to have four?

Mr. Davies: I will not give a specific reply to the question about the exact worth of the special development areas because it is clear that intermediate areas are much more easy to calculate. With the special development area, where the element of selective assistance is liable to be much more substantial, the element of the calculation is much more complex. I doubt whether it would be valid to give a figure. It would certainly be very unsatisfactory from our country's point of view if any of our development areas or special development areas were classified as central in current terms. This is what the Government have sought to ensure did not happen, and they have been successful. I agree with the hon.
Gentleman that it is necessary to have more than two classifiable areas. I described it as a rather rough-hewn agreement to reach anything like a reasonable spread. Recognising the disparity in Europe, it will be necessary to have more than two.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agnosticism about European monetary union expressed on the radio last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is widely echoed both within this Chamber and outside? In these circumstances could he say more about that to which we have been committed in these talks concerning the second stage of monetary union? To what extent are we committed to tax harmonisation, and do the Government and the House still possess the right of zero rates of VAT, and indeed to extend the range of commodities to which zero rates of VAT may be levied, if the House so wishes?

Mr. Davies: The quick answer that I can give to my hon. Friend is that no commitment has been made with regard to the second phase at all. The second phase is at this stage in the form of a series of broad proposals made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers, to be considered by the Council of Ministers and then remitted again to the Commission for much greater precision to be inserted into the proposals. Therefore, at this stage there is no commitment whatever. The only broad commitment that exists is that at the time of the Summit last October, which committed us and our partners in Europe to the prospect of economic and monetary union by 1980.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he calls "the paper" setting out the EEC negotiating position for the GATT talks is not even yet available to hon. Members in the Library of this House? Does he not regard this situation as unsatisfactory?

Mr. Davies: I am glad to be able to tell the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that he will now find a copy of a provisional English text of this paper available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is bound to be some concern in intermediate areas at the fact that they will have central area status? Will he go out of his way to stress that there is no reason whatever for the result of that decision to mean that the level of aid available in the intermediate areas should be reduced?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the firm assurance that as a result of the arrangements now put forward by the Commission there is no cause for such concern. I have stressed the other assurances that we have been given by the Commission in relation to special problems of the kind I specifically mentioned in my statement.

Mr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the regional fund is due to operate from January next year? Will those development areas which have been held in abeyance still be eligible for money from the regional fund? Have the Government entered into a commitment over proposals for the regions about which there is considerable doubt—for example, the South-Western development area? What sum of money does he think adequate for the regional fund? There has been much comment about a sum of 500 million dollars a year. Will he give a figure for which he thinks the House should be fighting in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Davies: On the first question, the arrangement which has been entered into under Article 154, in agreement with the Commission, has no relevance whatever to access to the regional fund as from 1st January 1974. They are dealt with as entirely separate issues and there is no inter-relationship at all between them. As for the size of the fund, I would prefer not to venture a figure because this is obviously a matter on which there will be much negotiation. All I can say is that it is essential that the fund should be a very substantial one to start with and should have the capacity to evolve into a much greater amount as time goes by, in line with developing knowledge of regional problems and the need to deal with these matters on a Community level.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been five meetings

of the Council of Ministers in 5½ weeks and that today is the first time we have had a statement in this House about those five meetings? There is far too much packed into this one statement. Is this not an unsatisfactory way of dealing with these matters? Will my right hon. Friend answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) about widening the area of zero rating. Are we, or are we not, allowed to do this within the Community? My right hon. Friend said that the Government's views on regional policy are shared by the TUC and the CBI. What about Parliament?

Mr. Davies: On the last question, I cannot believe that Parliament, with all its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, would think this arrangement anything but a highly satisfactory one. I must ask my hon. Friend to try to get away from the idea that this is an unsatisfactory result, since it is quite the reverse. It is in that respect that the TUC and CBI have given unqualified approval to the kind of arrangement that has been entered into. I do not accept the kind of criticism put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
On the second issue, I very much regret that there is so much material in the statement, but a great deal has been going on. I come to the House as reasonably often as I can, and I am always willing to submit myself to question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about zero rating?") Zero rating is a matter for further tax harmonisation, which at this stage has reached no state of commitment.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something more about the arrangements which allow for higher levels of support for areas where steel redundancies are likely to take place—for example, in Shotton, Irlam and Cardiff? For example, if the task forces—which we are told will report fairly soon—recommend that full development area status be given to Cardiff and Shotton so that they can deal with redundancies, may we have an absolute assurance that there will be no European block whatever on this matter?

Mr. Davies: I think I can give a positive assurance to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in this


respect. In the existing provisions made under the communication of 1971 there was a provision under which special arrangements could be made for identifiable reasons among the provisions in the classification. There would be the facilities to do so. To that has been added the specific undertaking on steel redundancy areas, which is a matter we raised. I cannot say in so many words that whatever might be decided automatically will be applied as such, but there is every reason to suppose that nothing the task force may recommend will in any way be blocked by the Commission.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to emphasise that in intermediate areas, such as North Wales, which are threatened with redundancies, any steel closure areas will not lose anything on account of reclassification as central areas, since the level of Government aid can continue as high as it is at present, and will benefit from the special measures proposed to be taken in the case of steel redundancies?

Mr. Davies: Yes, that is my firm belief, and I can reassure my hon. Friend on that subject.

Mr. Barry Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency is scheduled to suffer 7,200 steel redundancies by 1980. Is he aware that East Flintshire and Deeside is an intermediate area, and will he commit the Government to scheduling us on Deeside as a special development area? Does he not think that if the redundancies take place the situation will merit such treatment?

Mr. Davies: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development is considering the matter to which the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) referred, as indeed he is considering all such matters as they develop in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need have no fear that the area about which I know he has great concern will go by default. However, it is for my right hon. Friend to make his conclusions on this matter.

Mr. Body: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about regional policy. He will be aware of the growing concern

that now exists about the net outflow of capital from this country to the Continent. Does he appreciate that some £800 million of capital is flowing away from this country compared with an inflow of capital from the Continent of only £350 million? Will he accept that this is a danger—perhaps a long-term danger—for some of the intermediate areas, and that. if this trend continues, it will imperil jobs and, indeed, the standard of living of many thousands of people? Will he give an assurance that no regional policy will be completed until we firmly understand the consequences of that net outflow of capital from this country?

Mr. Davies: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. But it is noticeable at present that, whereas there is considerable investment from Britain going into the Community countries, there is also a very marked upturn in investment in Britain. In fact, the evidence does not support any concern at present that investments placed in the Community are so placed at the expense of investments at home. But I shall keep very much in mind the points that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the figures given by his hon Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body)?

Mr. Davies: I should require notice to confirm those figures.

Mr. Dan Jones: Consequent upon the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) about the intermediate areas, if the sentence on these people is to be postponed why is it that the Commission is reviewing the position of these areas?

Mr. Davies: As I have sought to explain, the Commission is reviewing the matter in order to ensure that inducements to investment are not offered in areas which less justify such inducements than in those—for example, our intermediate areas—which have a higher right to inducements in order to attract investment. This, after all, is what the Commission is all about. Incidentally, it is not a sentence. It is a guarantee.

Mr. Edward Taylor: While my right hon. Friend has undoubtedly done a very


good job for the development districts in these complex negotiations, may I ask him whether he is in a position to say why the procedure was adopted of not classifying the development districts as "peripheral" subject to review on 31st December 1974, instead of leaving them in abeyance? Was the same procedure adopted for other new member States? Was my right hon. Friend able to establish at these meetings whether in the event of Her Majesty's Government deciding to continue regional employment premium after 1974 the Common Market would allow us to do so?

Mr. Davies: Our areas were not called "peripheral" because it was recognised that our own regional problems were of a kind which did not lend themselves to such very broad forms of definition but required a much more sophisticated analysis. This is what they are getting.
The regional employment premium is a matter about which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made his position well known. There is no suggestion at present that REP should not be continued on its present terms. But we must leave this matter for further discussion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer is planning discussions about this matter with the TUC and the CBI before further action is taken.

Mr. English: Since the right hon. Gentleman was rather vague about the revision of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, may I remind him that if beet sugar replaces cane sugar there could he many thousands of redundancies as a result, primarily in the development areas?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to amplify the point. I am conscious of the problems raised for us in two major respects. The first is that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that of unemployment in the development areas. The other is in respect of our commitments to the Commonwealth sugar producers. Both are very much in the Government's mind. Very categorical assurances on the subject have been given to the Commonwealth sugar producers and steps have been taken to deal with the continuance of refining cane sugar in this country. The matter is very much in the Government's mind, and every assurance has been given to Commonwealth sugar producers which they on their side have found very satisfactory.

SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague on nuclear testing, and supports the two Commonwealth Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests in the Pacific.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty".

Mr. Dalyell: Over the past six months or more whenever the Prime Minister or the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has found himself confronted by some awkward or inconvenient point on French nuclear tests in the course of Parliamentary Questions, invariably he has taken refuge in the same bolt hole, saying that the attitude of the present Government is, after all, no different from that of the Labour Government in 1966 and 1967. Ministers at the Dispatch Box have often got away with it, since in the very nature of our Question Time the House wants to pass on to the next subject. However, many hon. Members right round the political spectrum know that counter-attacking the Opposition for what happened seven years ago is just too easy by half.
There have been fundamental changes in circumstances. In 1966 it was believed that there was a definite threshold below which radiation was not harmful. In 1973 we know that any level of radiation can be harmful.
In 1966 the Governments of Australia and New Zealand acquiesced in testing. In 1973 the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have made formal requests to us to use such influence as we have with the French to stop the impending tests.
In 1966 the people of Australia and New Zealand really could not have cared much less about testing in the Marquesas Archipelago. In 1973 people of all political persuasions in Australia and New Zealand are concerned about the prospective pollution of the Pacific.
In 1966 knowledge about Chinese nuclear testing was a little sparse. In 1973 it is known that Chinese nuclear testing can produce atmospheric pollution dangerous in its consequences throughout certain latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
In 1966 we had no position with the Government of France as a Common Market partner. In 1973 the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary comes to the House and waxes eloquent on the subject of the European Community of the Nine. Matters clearly are rather different.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend a little time on the scientific detail. On Thursday night my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) extracted this assertion from the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
The evidence available to the Foreign Office is that there is no danger whatever to health as a result of the French or Chinese tests in the atmosphere.
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the presence of strontium 90, and does he further deny the connection between strontium 90 and bone cancer and lukaemia? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the presence of caesium 137, which has a longish half-life of 30 years, anal does he further deny the connection between caesium 137 and many forms of cancer, a connection which has been proved by work which has been done by scientists in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does he deny the presence of iodine 131 and its attendant dangers to the thyroid gland?
Over the years we have come to know the right hon. Gentleman as a man of many remarkable parts. But until now it had not occurred to us to think of him


as a man whose qualities of mind and scholarship enabled him single-handed to take on the entire informed medical and biochemical establishment of the country in its own specialities. Here we have the most versatile European since Leonardo da Vinci. Not only did he father the Concorde by himself he has invented new laws of biochemistry. The Minister is a man of unsuspected genius.
Then the Minister takes refuge in the Australian Government's National Radiation Advisory Committee. That is rather dangerous, because, although it reported after the previous series of tests that
The fall-out from the French series of tests does not constitute a hazard to the health of the Australian population",
that is not a scientific statement. It is not on my authority that I say that but on the authority of the most distinguished British Nobel Prize winner in the field, Maurice Wilkins. The report did not take into account the work of Tamplin, Goffman and Sternglass on strontium 90 and caesium 137. It is difficult to see how the committee could have arrived at that conclusion with certainty, as radiation hazards are now known to be cumulative, and additionally so in the sense that bone and tissues act as isotope collectors.
The story is that the Americans at first disputed the arguments of Sternglass that there was danger in any level of radiation. The American Atomic Energy Commission appointed two of its own people to go into the Sternglass allegations. At the end of the day those people, who were supposed to be critical, confirmed that in many important material respects Sternglass was right.
Therefore, I must ask where the Foreign Office is obtaining its scientific advice. The House deserves to be told who is giving it. We suspect that the people giving the advice are not more distinguished in matters of genetics than Linus Pauling, Patricia Lindop and Maurice Wilkins, who have led scientific protests against the tests. In particular, may we be told about the terms of reference, the functions and the reports of the two men who have been seconded to the Pitcairn Islands?
Before I depart from the scientific aspects of the matter, another explanation is required, in answer to questions which have been put, not least by my right

hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) last Thursday. If the tests are so safe, why did the countries of North Africa and West Africa kick up such a fuss when the French were testing in the Sahara? If the British Government are so content about the safety of the tests, why did not they persuade the French to carry them out in the Massif Central or in the Bay of Biscay?

Mr. Charles Loughlin: What about the English Channel?

Mr. Dalyell: That is another candidate. Why do it in someone else's back yard and not one's own?
If scientific knowledge has advanced since 1966, so have the political circumstances. Australia and New Zealand, which were acquiescent and agnostic for two decades of testing, have now become so alarmed that they have gone successfully to the International Court at The Hague on this important issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), a former Attorney-General, can obviously speak on that matter with more authority that than I can ever hope to have, so I leave the Hague decision to him.
We should not be deluded into thinking that the change in attitude of the Australian and New Zealand Governments is simply a result of a change of their political complexion. Australia and New Zealand are at The Hague because the people of Australia and New Zealand have been alerted, and the fact that they now have Labour Governments is only part of the story.
In 1969, in Cairns and Townsville, Queensland, I sensed the beginning of anger at testing. Now it is felt by all sorts of people right across Australia. One reaction which I found, and which I gather is now growing, is that "It may be bad enough for us Queenslanders, but what about the Polynesians, whose resistance is much weaker than ours?"
As a result of certain publicity to do with the test issue, I was invited to go on the Greenpeace March part of the way from London to the French border. Anyone who walked with the young Australians and New Zealanders on that march could establish that they were not cranks. In fact, they were among


the very best young people in their country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) will confirm. Anyone who met Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Cahill, representing about 27 Australian women's organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and I did, knows that they represent the women of Australia and are not cranks.
Unprompted by their Governments, the Australian and New Zealand trade union movements have taken spontaneous action. They have the solidarity of the British trade union movement, and action is being taken by the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Post Office workers, and the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. Now, most important of all, the action has been endorsed by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.
An Australian in Britain this summer voiced the feelings of thousands of his fellow countrymen when he told me "My father came to help you people at Gallipoli and suffered. I served with the 8th Army in North Africa and my brother served with the 14th Army in Burma. We quite understand why many British people thought it right to join the European Common Market. But". he added pointedly, "does that mean that you have altogether forgotten the old relationship, the more so when your connection with your new friends, the French, should give you the power to help us in this matter of testing?" In one form or another that feeling is echoed many times, and it cuts pretty deep.
There is something else which cuts rather deep. On 28th October 1971 I was one of those who voted in favour of joining the European Community. Among other things, we imagined, not without a good deal of reason if ministerial speeches were to be believed, that entry would give us a substantial say in the foreign and defence policy of our partners. When one considers the story of British handling of the matter of tests with France, one is forced to the embarrassing and disconcerting conclusion that right hon. and hon. Friends like my right hon. Friends the Members for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and others may have been wiser

in their perceptions than some of us were.
If a British Government cannot influence President Pompidou on this matter—if they tried, which we strongly doubt—a matter on which the overwhelming majority of the United Nations is at one with us, by 104 votes to 4, what on earth can we influence the French on? Being ignored to the point of being snubbed by M. Pompidou and M. Messmer was not the kind of relationship between Britain and France for which some voted on 28th October 1971.
In connection with what are very deep issues of the kind of relationship we are to have with the French, I must refer to an unpleasant and nasty speech made by M. Messmer in New Caledonia on 26th May last year, when he said:
We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market, New Zealand came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended"—
that is the word used in the official translation—
to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports for a period of five years, but this limit could be reconsidered and reduced, and we could look at the application with disfavour.
We find that attitude odious. Can we count on Her Majesty's Government to protect New Zealand's right to five years' exports to the Community, whatever frigates she decides to send to Mururoa Atoll?
There is one reason, perhaps the most important of all, why President Pompidou should be persuaded to change his mind. France is not alone in her testing. China is also at it, and at it in a big way. I make it plain on behalf of the Opposition that we deplore the Chinese testing not an iota less than the French testing, without reservation and without qualification.
As one of the Members who have valued friendly relations with the Chinese, perhaps I am in a position to say that. However, I add that when I was lucky enough to be in Peking with a trade delegation I raised this matter in courteous terms, and Chen-wen-Chin, head of the Western European and American Department of the Chinese Foreign Office, when confronted with the question had a simple and courteous answer. He asked "Are not your friends the French doing


the same thing?" That is the Chinese answer, and that is an important reason why we should be influencing the French. It is possible—I put it no higher—that if the French were to stop nuclear testing the Chinese would not care to be the only nation in the world to continue with atmospheric tests.
Two questions are called for in this debate. Why did not Britain protest to the Chinese, along with the Japanese and Australians, who have far more to lose by giving offence in Peking? Secondly, will the Prime Minister express his views forcefully to Chou En-lai when he goes to Peking later this year? As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Chinese respect candour.
The late Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, whose passing many of us greatly lament, used to say that, on principle, at least once a year one should vote against the Whips. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is just such an occasion. By their vote, or abstention if that is easier, they would be telling their Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to be less reticent with the French and to speak for Britain. Government back benchers sometimes have a duty to alter affairs in politics, and I believe that this is one of the occasions on which they should do so.
What do the Opposition hope for? First, we want an official and speedy protest to the Chinese about their testing. Secondly, we want serious answers to the questions that have been put this afternoon and by some of my hon. Friends during the foreign affairs debate. On past form, I accept that we could get a sort of yah-boo answer—"You did the same." That is the kind of record that we have heard too often. To use the more eloquent language of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South, the tu quoque argument, as the lawyers have it, would not be acceptable because it would be too glib by half. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), when he was Foreign Secretary, protested in the extreme terms allowed by diplomatic language to President De Gaulle. Thirdly, we want the Prime Minister to go to France and to confront President Pompidou before any damage is done. After all, Lord Attlee did that in more

difficult circumstances with President Truman.
It is the Prime Minister's reluctance to do that that is the prime cause of censure, and perhaps I may explain why our criticism is directed peculiarly and personally at the right hon. Gentleman. Bluntly—my colleagues may disagree—I think that there are a number of Conservatives who, in private, are as angry with the French as we are, and that may be the reason why they have put down such a mellow amendment. I suspect, too, from the Foreign Secretary's reaction on Thursday that he is saddened and angry with the French. Since we are all products of our past achievements, it would be strange if one of the creators of the test ban treaty were not pretty sick at heart, and I am not being kind to the right hon. Gentleman merely because it is his 70th birthday.
I thought it was strange that on Wednesday afternoon, when asked about the failure to influence the French Government, the right hon. Gentleman replied gently "That is a question"—he said resignedly—"that must be addressed to many other people", and he added rather sorrowfully "The French are capable of making their decisions for themselves". That was a strange attitude, I thought a mellow attitude, and one that leads to the belief that there may be some differences of opinion, which will not be ventilated in public, between many people and the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister's attitude is altogether different.
I do not say that the Prime Minister likes atmospheric testing. That is not the argument. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not like it very much at all, but the whole business to the Prime Minister, as it has seemed over all these months, is, to use one of his own favourite words, not terribly "relevant". His attitude has been "Why have a row about testing? When you are quarrelling over the common agricultural policy, when you are having a great argument about the size of lorries, and when you have a stalemate over regional incentives, why bother about nuclear testing?"
In my view, the Prime Minister's discomfiture is not about nuclear testing at all but about M. Pompidou and M. Messmer thinking that the British are


not very good Europeans after all. If one can put thoughts into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, he thinks, "For pity's sake do not add nuclear testing to my problems". In my opinion, that is not an unfair summary of the Prime Minister's attitude.
It is sad, since it is well known that the Prime Minister has a deeply close personal relationship with the French President. It is inconceivable that policy on these matters is made anywhere in France other than at the Elysee, and the objective conclusion must be that the Prime Minister had the position to do something about it and, at best, he did not try very hard, even in terms of language accepted in diplomacy, or possibly he has tried not at all. It is the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister that Britain has been feckless on a issue on which we ought to have been determined, and reticent when we ought to have been outspoken. In 1973, testing by France is not a subject about which Britain can shrug her shoulders and pass by on the other side of the road.
The Prime Minister's attitude has been to allow the meekest decencies, of going through the motions of protesting, without dreaming of having any kind of scene with President Pompidou. In terms of world environment, in terms of public opinion in this country, in terms of healthy future relations between Britain and France and, indeed, in terms of long-term British national and European interest, the right hon. Gentleman has got his priorities tragically wrong. This is a subject on which to have a row, and that is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion in the Lobby tonight.

4.38 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any State and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty".
I hope that I might be allowed at the outset to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what I believe is his first

Front Bench speech. The homework that he has done on this subject and the contribution that he made today fully justify his appearance at that Front Bench, and I hope that we shall often hear him from that position.
I welcome the debate because I think it is clear that not only in Australia and New Zealand but in this country, too, there is a good deal of interest in the subject that has been raised. It is appropriate that it should be discussed here in Parliament, and, therefore, I rather regret the decision of the Union of Post Office Workers to try to suspend the transmission of French letters, or perhaps I should call them mail from France, as the other subject is likely to be debated after 10 o'clock tonight.
The motion before the House asks us to make a protest against the French Government's refusal to accept the Interim Measures Order of the International Court of Justice. In deciding what our position should be, we have to take account of the obligations which rest upon ourselves and upon the French, of the risks to health and the environment, of our obligation to Commonwealth countries, and of our general attitude to international law.
The hon. Gentleman rightly rehearsed the historical and scientific arguments bearing on the matter. Before saying a few words on the international legal aspect of the subject—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with them in much greater detail—I should like to follow his course and deal a little with the background.
Nuclear weapons were first developed by Britain and the United States, in cooperation, during the Second World War. After the war the United States continued with a purely national programme and was followed in this by the Soviet Union.
After some interruption, the development of nuclear weapons was resumed in Britain by Mr. Attlee's Government. In the fifties steps were also taken to initiate nuclear weapon programmes in France and in the People's Republic of China.
The development of all these weapons involved a series of tests in the atmosphere, first in the kiloton range and then in the megaton range. These tests were undertaken by the United States on the


American mainland and later in the Pacific; by the Soviets within the territory of the Soviet Union; by Britain at Montebello Island and Maralinga with the co-operation of the Australian Government and later at Christmas Island; by China in Sinkiang; and by France first in the Sahara and later in the Pacific.
For a long time international opinion was primarily concerned with the whole problem of the limitation and control of nuclear weapons. But, by the mid-1950s an important body of responsible opinion was becoming increasingly exercised by the need to limit nuclear tests because of the increase in levels of radioactivity in the Northern Hemisphere and fears that these might have adverse effects on health and the environment—all this quite apart from any consideration of disarmament or non-proliferation.
As far back as 1955, Mr. Speaker, then holding my present office, made certain proposals in the United Nations which in 1957 were developed, when Mr. Speaker was Foreign Secretary, into a system for the suspension of nuclear tests. After thorough scientific investigation, the British and American Governments came to the conclusion that fears about the effect of fall-out were very much exaggerated. They nevertheless proposed that a United Nations committee be set up to study the question.
Later, in March 1957, in the Bermuda Declaration, the two Governments undertook to conduct their own testing in such a way as to avoid significant increases in world levels of radioactivity.
We and the Americans also appealed—as it happened, without success—to the Soviet Union to give a similar undertaking. In 1958 negotiations began in Geneva. While these were going on, there was an informal and voluntary suspension of tests by the three Powers. This became a virtual moratorium.
In 1961, however, there was a setback when the Soviet Union announced its intention to break the agreed moratorium, which it had itself proposed, and resumed nuclear tests in the atmosphere on an intensive scale, including weapons of 50–100 megatons. These led the Americans in their turn to resume their own nuclear tests, though I think it worth saying that they deferred for a time at

the urging of the then British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, who still hoped that an East-West summit conference might be arranged to discuss this matter among other matters.
In this connection, it is only fair to recall that the American decision to undertake tests in the Pacific was formally and publicly endorsed by the Australian Government of the day.
In 1963 the Soviet Union finally agreed to Western proposals for a partial ban, covering nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, but excluding those underground. I happened, as chance had it, to play a small part myself in these negotiations in June 1963, when, at the then Prime Minister's request, I explored with Mr. Khruschev possible ways forward. This was a first modest step in the approach march to the partial test ban treaty.
Shortly after my visit, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor went to Moscow and there conducted the main negotiations which led to the signing of the treaty in Moscow later that year.
I rehearse these events to show that there can be no question as to the importance attached to the control of nuclear tests from 1957 by the Government presided over by Mr. Harold Macmillan and in which Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend were Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, nor as to the diplomatic efforts which we deployed to help bring this about.
Following the conclusion of the partial test ban treaty in 1963, the number of atmospheric tests fell dramatically. There have been no tests since then in the atmosphere by the United States, the Soviet Union or Britain, though a large number have been undertaken underground and are continuing.
As far back as 1960, however, the French and the Chinese declined to subscribe to any international agreement on testing. They are not bound, therefore, by the obligations of the test ban treaty of 1963.
China exploded her first nuclear device in 1964, and this has been followed by a further 14 Chinese tests in the atmosphere including the one last week. These, taken together, have yielded a total of 20 megatons of explosive power, all in the


Northern Hemisphere; the test last week yielded between two and three megatons. The French, after a period of atmospheric and underground tests in the Sahara, resumed atmospheric testing with their first tests in the Pacific, exactly seven years ago, on 2nd July 1966. Some 30 shots since then have added up to an estimated total of 10 megatons, all in the Southern Hemisphere.
The combined total of these continued atmospheric tests by both France and China has, therefore, been of the order of 30 megatons over nine years. This compares with about 200 megatons in the years immediately preceding the partial test ban treaty. The total megatonnage—if I may use the word—of French atmospheric tests, both before and after 1963, is thus about 4 per cent. of the total, and about the same as the British figure.
From this historical review, I come next to the programme of tests which France is expected to undertake in the Pacific this summer. Our attitude here is perfectly clear. In 1963 Her Majesty's Government, as well as the United States Government, urged the French Government to sign the partial test ban treaty.
As initiators and signatories of the treaty, we are seriously concerned at the continuation of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and we urge that all Governments which have not yet done so should adhere to it. This view is well known to the French and Chinese Governments. It has been stated publicly by successive Governments. It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the French tests of 1966, though not to those of 1967 and 1968, and by Mr. George Brown, as he then was, in relation to the Chinese tests of 1966, though not in respect of the subsequent Chinese tests.
The same position has been repeatedly stated in this House in 1972 and again this year by my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, by other Ministers and by myself. These statements have been further confirmed by our support of Resolution No. 2934 which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on

the initiative, among others, of the Australian and New Zealand Governments.
That resolution expressed concern that nuclear tests in the atmosphere had continued in some parts of the world, including the Pacific area; stressed the urgency of halting all atmospheric tests in the Pacific or anywhere else in the world; and urged all States that had not already done so to adhere to the partial test ban treaty. Nothing, therefore, could be clearer than the position adopted by successive British Governments—our predecessors, like ourselves, though perhaps less frequently.
The question then arises whether, in addition to the statements I have referred to and to our support of the United Nations resolution, we should make specific representations to our French friends about their prospective programme. We must remember that we are not concerned here with the question of whether France should or should not develop her nuclear power. That is a decision entirely for France and it is not one which concerns our debate this afternoon.
Our concern is with the possible risks from fall-out and the effect of any rise in background levels of radioactivity which will result from continued atmospheric testing. It so happens that we are responsible for the nearest centre of population to the French testing ground—the Pitcairn Islands. We have accordingly carefully monitored previous tests undertaken by the French in the area. We are arranging for this to be done also in this case. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the terms of reference of our monitoring team. They have orders to conduct on the spot monitoring of the radiological effects if an explosion takes place, and to report the results. We have also exchanged our findings with the Australian and New Zealand authorities, and with the United States, which also has dependencies in the area. The hon. Gentleman asked who would pass judgment. The Government's scientific advisers make an assessment and it is for me as Minister to endorse their findings and not to specify which individual expressed a particular view.
The information so derived points to the following conclusions. The Chinese


and French tests are together responsible for about one-tenth of the total annual radiation doses to people in the Southern Hemisphere. Current radiation levels in the Southern Hemisphere have reached only a tiny fraction, about one-hundreth part, of the so-called "reference levels" recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection as safety limits for continuous exposure of populations to radiation.
Perhaps I may put the point in a simpler way. Even if there had never been any man-made nuclear explosions we would all still be, and indeed are, subject to constant exposure to radiation. Radiation reaches the earth from space, from the sun's rays, and is also caused by elements naturally present in the earth, such as thorium and uranium. The levels of this natural radiation vary appreciably from one part of the earth to another, and even from city to city within individual countries.
The contribution to present radiation levels of all the nuclear devices so far exploded in the atmosphere, including all the Northern Hemisphere test shots before the partial test ban treaty, by Britain, by America, by Russia and by France, is smaller than the variations in existing natural radiation levels between many individual countries and even between many cities in the same country. In other words, a man can be exposed to greater increase in the levels of radiation by moving home than from nuclear test fall-out.
A vivid illustration of this fact came up at the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in 1971. On that occasion, Indian researchers reported cases in Kerala of individuals who received as much as 2,500 millirems of natural radiation per head a year. The average annual exposure of individuals in the Kerala area as a whole was 500 millirems per head. This can be compared with the figure of 0·2 millirems per head in the Southern Hemisphere attributable to French tests. Furthermore, the Indian scientists reported no resulting damage to the health of the Kerala population.

Mr. Dalyell: If all this is true, why are not the tests conducted in the Bay of Biscay or the Massif Central?

Mr. Amery: It is no responsibility of ours where the tests are conducted. These

are French tests conducted by the French. Every effort is made to conduct these tests in the safest possible area, but, as I explained at the outset of my remarks for a very long time the Soviet and American tests were all conducted in areas of much denser population than those to which we are now referring and the Australian Government themselves made no objections at the time that the tests were conducted at Maralinga and Montebello.

Mr. Laurance Reed: When I was at the atomic tests at Christmas Island what worried us most was not so much the radiation that would follow if the bomb went off according to plan but what would happen if the bomb went off accidentally by dropping into the sea. Has my right hon. Friend made any estimates of what the effect would be on Pitcairn if anything went wrong with the French tests?

Mr. Amery: As my hon. Friend will know, a team of scientists, including Australian scientists, visited the French testing centre the other day, and they, as I understand, in no way criticised the security and safety facilities they found there.
Much has been made of the possible long-term genetic effects of current nuclear fall-out. The discussion here is based on statistical projections about which there is a considerable division of scientific opinion. The fact is that no one knows what the remote effects of very small increases in radiation will be. This very uncertainty is one of the reasons why the majority of the international community has taken the view that atmospheric nuclear testing should cease. All the same, it is fair to point out that in a report on this subject to the Australian Prime Minister in April of this year the Australian National Academy of Sciences stated that
… the average levels of radiation due to the French explosions are unlikely to make a statistically detectable increase in the cancer or genetic effects in Australia …".
This conclusion was based on the worst assumption—scientists base their conclusions on a number of assumptions and this conclusion was based on the worst assumption—namely, that genetic effects would be proportional to dose, even down to the lowest dose rates. On past experience we have no reason to doubt that French safety precautions are


such that there is no danger to the inhabitants of Pitcairn.
I understand that Australian and New Zealand experts have recently visited the French test site and have been able to see for themselves the precautions which the French are taking and have not represented, to me, at any rate, or to us, that the French precautions are inadequate However, in order to reassure ourselves and the Pitcairn Islanders on this point we have this year, as in past years, made arrangements to carry out radiological monitoring. There are two RAF technicians on Pitcairn itself to carry out this monitoring, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale" is also stationed in the area.
I say all this not to suggest that we condone nuclear tests in the atmosphere. We do not. We deplore them. We believe that all countries should submit to the restraints which the signatories of the partial test ban treaty have accepted. But in discussing the effects of current testing we should not allow our opinions on this matter to lead us to distort the facts.
I conclude from this that there is no evidence arising from the programme of French tests now contemplated, judged against the background of previous tests, such as would, in the Government's view, justify making specific representations to the French Government on health and environmental grounds, over and above the statements and representations that we have already made in this House and at the United Nations.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there was no need for the nuclear test ban treaty. May I ask him a specific point about the British—not the Australian—Radiological Protection Board's report published in May this year, which states that radiation carries
some risk of disease or death. Even when the doses are small enough for the risks to be ignored for all practical purposes, it is prudent to require justification for these doses".
Will the Minister explain what the justification is in this particular case? In doing so, he ought to do us the credit of differentiating between atmosphere-borne radiation from strontium 90 and caesium 137 and the so-called natural radiation to which he has referred.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will give us credit for accepting that all these recommendations and considerations have been carefully studied by the Government's scientific advisers before we take a decision, such as we have taken, and before I say what I have said to the House today.
The conclusion that I was drawing to the attention of the House is simply that we have made our public position clear on a number of occasions—Conservative, Labour and again Conservative Governments—that we have voted at the United Nations and that the French and Chinese Governments are well aware of our point of view, but that we do not see, from our experience of previous French tests or from our anticipation of anything that is likely to occur in the light of the reports which not only our experts but the Australian and other experts have had of the precautions taken by the French, that there is any evidence to justify further specific representations other than those which we have already made publicly, in the House and through the United Nations.

Mr. Dalyell: In the winding-up speech may we have a categorical assurance that the Government advisers are aware of the work of Tamplin, Goffman and Stern-glass, or are we to be told that their work is considered to be invalid? That specific question is crucial to this kind of argument.

Mr. Amery: I shall do my best to see that an answer is available for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to give when he replies to the debate. But I should be extremely surprised if any serious consideration had not been fully taken into account by the Government scientific advisers on these matters.
The motion before the House is concerned with the Interim Measures Order made by the International Court of Justice on 22nd June. The French Government have rejected those orders and, indeed, have denied the jurisdiction of the court in this whole matter. Their reasons for taking up this attitude are set out in their White Paper published last week, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.
Generally speaking it is Her Majesty's Government's view that all countries have


a duty to observe orders of the International Court in so far as such orders apply to them. However, the orders in question are addressed to the French Government and to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and not to the British Government. The question of their observance is a matter for the court and for the three Governments concerned.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Rubbish.

Mr. Amery: There is no obligation on Her Majesty's Government in international law to take action in support of an order of the International Court in a case to which we are not a party and in which we are not involved.
It may be that the state of international law is imperfect. My right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) may wish to discuss that later, but in the present state of international law there is no obligation on Her Majesty's Government to take action in support of the International Court in a case to which we are not a party and in which we are not involved.
For the British Government, therefore, to make a protest to the French Government on the basis of the orders of the court would be a purely political action not imposed on us by any international obligations. It would not be fulfilling an obligation.
We see no cause for any such action. We see no cause for it because we have made our views on the subject of testing in the atmosphere crystal clear already. We see no cause for it because we do not consider that risks arise for the Pitcairn Islanders, for whom we are responsible—or for the populations of other territories in the Pacific for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible—which would justify it.
That is why we are not able to support the representations made by the Governments of the two Commonwealth countries of Australia and New Zealand.
We see no cause for it because, although we support the general principle that all countries should observe orders of the International Court which apply to them, it is not for us to enter into judgment over the disputes of others—and, in any case, there is no obligation

on us to take any action in cases in which we are not involved.
I apologise for the length at which I have detained the House. But this is not an easy question and it is an important one. We have had to consider our responsibilities and record both as a nuclear Power and as signatories, indeed initiators, of the test ban treaty.
We have had to consider our direct responsibilities in the Pacific and as members of the Commonwealth, and in particular our close and long-standing ties with our friends and allies in Australia and New Zealand. We have had to consider our responsibilities as allies of France and partners with her in the European Economic Community.
We have tried to set out once again in clear and positive terms the Government's policy. It is for all these reasons that I am asking the House not to accept the motion put forward by the Opposition but, instead, to accept the Government's amendment, which sets out our position unambiguously, namely, that this House
shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling upon another hon. Member to speak, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the very considerable number of hon. Members who hope to catch the eye of the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will, accordingly, make their speeches as short as is reasonably possible.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech will be very short. I am only sorry that the Minister made such an appalling speech in such an appallingly long time, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), which was first-class. There is no need for anyone on the Opposition side of the House to make a long speech. Indeed, my biggest problem today will be the inadequacies of the English language in expressing my abhorrence of not only the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere but the attitude of the British Government, as so far demonstrated, and particularly in relation to the speech of the Minister today.
I equally oppose the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by China, as does my hon. Friend. But we are dealing today particularly with the French tests. Both we and France are partners in not only the Common Market but the Western Alliance. If we cannot influence France, we are wasting our time in even talking about trying to influence China.
The pollution of the atmosphere with nuclear fall-out is the greatest crime against humanity. That is something to which the British Government should be wholly and completely opposed and on which I hope the Government would have the fullest support of the British people.
France has claimed, and the Minister of State has reiterated the claim, that the proposed test is a clean test and that no danger to life is involved. If that be so, why is there a need to go so far from the mainland of France to carry out the tests? Why not carry them out over the English Channel or the mainland of France if there is no danger to life or to the future of the environment?
I underline the point which has already been made, that there can never be a guarantee in this kind of testing that there is not likely to be an error of some kind. The truth is that the tests represent a grave danger to life, and we have a responsibility to all people who are likely to be so endangered.
We have a particular responsibility to the people of the Pitcairn Islands and the people of New Zealand and Australia. The people of New Zealand and Australia came to our assistance when Britain was endangered. We should be failing in our responsibility if we did not go to their assistance and offer support.
I make the following suggestion to the Government seriously and knowing full well the danger which is involved. It is a matter which I have discussed with some of my hon. Friends on the back benches in the last few weeks. I know that the time is late but, late though it may be, I believe that, given the will, the suggestion which I shall make can be carried out. It would have to be done with the use of our planes and one of Her Majesty's ships. There must be a ship fairly close to the area of testing. We could within a matter of hours ferry volunteers by plane

to a ship which would then go into the test area during the tests.
I suggest to the Government that they should give the opportunity for hon. Members to join such a ship. I say that in all seriousness, knowing the dangers which are involved. If such a ship were placed at the disposal of hon. Members who are prepared to join the New Zealand frigate in the area, a number of hon. Members would be prepared to sail and to stay in the area until such time as France agreed to call off the tests or carried them out.
I should go, but very reluctantly. I should go in fear. I think that most of my hon. Friends with whom I have discussed this matter would go reluctantly. However, if we can in that way make a contribution to the stopping of nuclear tests in the atmosphere we would go willingly.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even though he made such an appalling speech, will recognise our responsibility. I hope that he will recognise that we must take more than normal action. I do not believe that there is not a danger. If there was not a danger, tests would be carried out nearer home. I hope he will take on board the suggestion which I make. I make it not for any other reason but that I believe that it is the one way in which France can be brought to the conclusion that the action which it proposes to take is repugnant in the nostrils of any decent person.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I salute the heroism of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). If he carries out his intention there will be great sorrow in the House at the loss of so well loved a Member. At least he will by his departure from our midst have clarified one issue which has been deliberately obscured in the course of the debate—namely, the difference of being within a matter of miles from the centre of an atomic explosion and that of being thousands of kilometres away, as is the nearest inhabited area to where the French nuclear tests are to take place.
To talk about the advisability of holding such tests in the Channel or in the centre of France is deliberately to obscure this all-important issue. Before going further, I should say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the speech of


the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). If any hon. Member is entitled to speak of this issue in moral terms it is he. I should like to acquit him of any bad faith in the matter.
There is a rather odious and smug tendency on both sides of the House to criticise the French for what they are doing. The United Kingdom has the nuclear capacity which it needs for its esential national interest, and it intends to keep that capacity up to date. Britain has reached the point at which it can maintain its nuclear capacity without having to resort to atmospheric tests. Britain has that capacity because of decisions taken by the post-war Labour Government under Lord Attlee. Those decisions were taken, as I understand it, without any consultation with Lord Attlee's colleagues. They were subsequently implemented by Conservative Governments in the 1950s.
The Labour Party, before the 1964 Labour Government was formed, pledged itself to put an end to Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and to renegotiate the Nassau agreement under which the Macmillan Government were proposing to keep the independent deterrent up to date. That renegotiation did not come to anything very much. That makes me wonder whether other promised renegotiations by the Opposition will come to any more. Renegotiations apart, the Government and the Opposition of 1964 did nothing whatever—and rightly so—to put an end to the British nuclear deterrent. That means that both parties now consider it necessary for Great Britain to have its own nuclear capacity and to keep it.
We carried out tests in the atmosphere, so did the Americans, and so did the Russians. All those tests were far more damaging to the environment than the tests which have been carried out and are proposed to be carried out by the French Government. Britain, having carried out tests in the atmosphere, equipped itself with the nuclear capacity which it required. The British, the Americans and the Russians then negotiated the partial test ban treaty. I do not deny that that was a great step forward, but it looks a more satisfactory step forward from our point of view than it does from the point of view of those Governments which had not got to the point

of being able to dispense with atmospheric tests.
Of course, France and China are to be criticised for carrying out tests in the atmosphere. They are to be criticised—indeed, they are criticised—for their determination to become nuclear Powers. I am not sure that this criticism can be quite so wholehearted now as it could be a few years ago—at a time, for example, when there is talk of the possibility of a pre-emptive strike by the Russians against the Chinese, at a time when the Americans and the Russians are evidently finding nearer and nearer identity of views on more and more topics which could conceivably include agreements at the expense of Europe.
The arguments for Chinese and French deterrents are a good deal stronger now than they were a few years ago. But for whomsoever it is proper to criticise the French and the Chinese for insisting on having their own independent deterrents, we are not the nation best qualified to offer that criticism.
France and China can likewise be criticised for carrying out their tests in the atmosphere, and I certainly very much wish that the French Government could have carried out this series of tests underground. I have, in fact, taken the opportunity to make this plain to French friends of mine and to the French Embassy here. I am certain that the Government have lost no opportunity to make it absolutely plain to the French Government that they deplore the continuation of tests in the atmosphere. I still submit that British Governments and British people are not the best qualified to make this criticism.
It is a national weakness of ours to assume that we British have some sort of moral status which entitles us to lecture the rest of the world on how to behave. It is a weakness which particularly affects the Labour Party, and it was particularly noticeable in the case of the Vietnam war. It is a weakness, but it is not a grave defect. What is a very much graver defect, and what I find very much more objectionable, is the growing tendency of hon. Members opposite—again I acquit the hon. Member for West Lothian—to seek foreign scapegoats for everything which goes wrong in this country and in particular to blame France and the French Government for all our


misfortunes. There is nobody on the opposite side of the House who is more guilty of this than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Such an attitude is totally unworthy of a party which claims to be an international party, and it is unfair to a great country, an ally of ours, which has at its head a man who has shown that he is both humane and civilised, and a great friend of this country.

5.24 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I want to make one or two points arising particularly from the speech from the Government Front Bench. First of all, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what I believe to be one of the most informative and well argued brief cases on defence and on this issue which we have heard for a long time.
I am somewhat puzzled by the speech of the Minister of State and by the amendment which has been put down by the Government. I cannot understand the logic of saying "We deplore the tests" and then saying that there is nothing wrong with the tests because there is no danger. If there is no danger, why deplore them? Why share the "widespread concern", as the amendment says, if there is nothing wrong with the tests? I do not understand the point of putting down an amendment and then delivering a speech contradicting what the amendment says. Presumably there is no reason for anybody here to have any widespread concern; everything is fine. We have this, apparently, on the very highest authority.
What struck me most about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his failure to answer a point raised by an hon. Member on this side of the House and also by one of his own hon. Friends—the two points hung together—namely, what happens to Pitcairn if the tests go wrong? It must be a great comfort to the people there to know that the British Government, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, "are going to watch the situation carefully". Presumably they are going to watch it go wrong. What safeguards can the British Government give to the people in Pitcairn, even on the very narrow argument, which I do

not accept, that the only danger would be if the tests went wrong? What safeguards can be given? None at all. No safeguards can be given, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
Listening to several hon. Members and having read the views of people who support the tests, I wonder why the tests have not been held in the Bay of Biscay. If the bomb is so safe, why not explode it over Paris? Of course, it is not safe. I think the right hon. Gentleman made out a very good case for not having a test ban treaty at all. All the arguments today to the effect that the tests are safe and that there will not be any increase in radioactivity were used by those people who opposed the test ban agreement. But the British Government did not oppose it, presumably because they did not accept those arguments. They said there was danger and that we must get together and see that these things are not tested. Now the Government share "widespread concern" about something which they say has no danger at all, but they will not talk to the French Government and do something about it.
Reference has been made to the arguments which were advanced in favour of Britain joining the EEC. It was said that we would have a tremendous influence on what our EEC partners were doing. We have no influence at all over sanction-breaking in connection with Rhodesia, and presumably we have absolutely no power at all to influence the French, which is why we have made no protests to the French Government—or so it would seem from what has been argued.
I believe in moral indignation. I believe that if enough moral indignation were aroused over these tests and the dangers to which people would be subjected, we would have some influence on the French Government. It is because people like the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not important and that there is no danger that the French are going to get away with it.
I must say that it was tactless of France to start her tests after the environmental conference which took place in Stockholm when widespread concern was expressed about the effects of those tests. The right hon. Gentleman has discarded all the evidence which has been produced and has produced counter quotes to show


that there is no danger. He has dismissed what was said about the increase in certain diseases known to have a link with increased radiation. I have come across a quote which has not been used by the Government Front Bench. We know that the French have argued that there is no danger, as our Government have argued, but the 1970 report from the United Nations Scientific Committee said that there had been a significant increase in radioactive iodine in milk in the Southern Hemisphere since the French nuclear tests began in the Pacific.
The more evidence which is brought forward, the more do we become concerned about the point at which danger begins. Yet the point seems to go creeping up, and we are never given a point at which there is danger. I believe there is danger. Thousands of young people, and people who are not so young, who are concerned with the environment and about the use to which bombs will be put—this is a topic on which we shall have to have a debate before long—do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said; and on the arguments of his party at the time of the nuclear test ban agreement, I do not believe that he accepts them either.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I am not a French Member of Parliament—though at times I wish I were, since the food would be better and the oratory largely incomprehensible—but I think there are times when one should speak up, as it were, for the French point of view. Listening to what is said by the Labour Party in particular, though I do not absolve my own side from blame in this matter, I am struck by the amount of humbug surrounding this issue. If humbug be the essential lubricant of international affairs, this afternoon we are certainly awash in it.
The English disease, as the French often diagnose it, is a desire to inject into foreign affairs a degree of morality, mostly bogus. If one asked a Frenchman to define the phrase "perfidious Albion", a phrase of French origin, he would say that it was the pursuit of England's national interest while lecturing others on the need for rectitude. This, I am afraid, is something to which the British—Labour, Liberal, Whig, Tory or Conservative—

all have to plead guilty, and there is evidence of that attitude running throughout this debate. At least, the rebuke of Her Majesty's Government to France has been as sotto voce in its effect as was the rebuke of the Labour Government to France in similar circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: I am personally sensitive to criticism of that kind, but is it not a fact that seven years ago, or even five years ago, it was thought that there was a threshold below which radiation was not dangerous, whereas we now know that there is no threshold and that any radiation, which is cumulative in its effect, is dangerous? There is a difference in the state of knowledge.

Mr. Critchley: I am not a scientist, and I can claim no special knowledge, but I know that on this issue, as on any other, there are scientists ready for hire. We have our prejudices on all sides of the House, and if we look for experts to back them, they are easy to find. Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say how much I enjoyed his first speech from the Front Bench, and I see no reason to change my mind about that.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Are we to assume from that most unhappy observation that the Government scientists on whom the Front Bench rely are merely gentlemen on hire?

Mr. Critchley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must save his legalisms for his winding-up speech. I have made my point and I stick by it. There are experts for hire in every walk of life, and I suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have probably done our share of hiring in the past.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in his most interesting opening speech, implied that he regretted that he had voted for British entry into the Common Market and went on to say that others of his party who did not vote for it might, in retrospect, have been correct. He gave as his reason—a curious reason—that we had been unable to influence French foreign and defence policy, especially defence policy, since 1st January this year.
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Common Market is the EEC,


not a defence community of any kind. There was never any suggestion—I say this in reply also to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—in the context of the European Economic Community that the defence policies of any one of the nine countries were, as it were, up for negotiation, or for bargaining. It is an economic community, which may in time, I hope, develop into a defence community, but at the time when we entered it it was an economic community only. The argument about influence, therefore, breaks down.
In May this year, in company with a number of Labour colleagues, I went as a member of the Western European Union delegation to inspect the French nuclear deterrent force in Provence, and a most interesting 48-hour visit it was. We saw en route to Provence the French Mirage squadrons. They have 40 aircraft which have been in service since 1964 and will be phased out in 1975. After a very good lunch, we saw 18 solid-fuel French IRBMs in Provence, to which another nine are to be added before 1978, and, at the same time, the French are constructing five nuclear submarines.
I mention all this to show that the French have gone in for a little of everything in terms of nuclear weapons, unlike ourselves who have gone in for some of some things only.
The point I am making is that if hon. Members opposite are so eager to see the French not explode a thermonuclear device in the Pacific, as the French, at present, have solid fuel missiles, and we have no missiles of any kind, but we have thermonuclear warheads whereas the French have only atomic warheads, why do they not, instead of wagging the finger at the French Government and saying "Please desist from doing something which we do not like", carry the logic of their argument to the point of saying that we should make an offer of some of our nuclear knowledge and material, which, were it offered and accepted, would overnight prevent the need for the French nuclear tests in the Pacific?
Is that not the logic behind the Opposition's request? There are the makings of a bargain here between Britain and

France—the so-called entente nucleaire, about which we shall, if we are lucky, be debating in the House over the next three, four or five years. The logic of the Opposition's case is that if they want the tests not to go on they should suggest that the information which we have gained from tests might conceivably be made available to France so that her tests would no longer have any validity. I do not know whether the Opposition would like to extend their argument to its logical conclusion, but, no doubt, that is something which we shall have to wait to hear from later speeches.
There has been a remarkable degree of humbug about the whole of this debate. If hon. Members would for a moment put themselves in the position of French Members of Parliament—and not just those who support the French Government, either—they would find a cynicism towards our approach very vividly expressed, and we should indeed deserve the rebukes which our attitude merits.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: First, I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about our giving nuclear know-how to the French. I have always held that our nuclear know-how should be held exclusively within an alliance, within NATO, and that it is not for us unilaterally to go in for a bargain with a single other party. The nuclear deterrent, if it is to be held at all—I have certain doubts about that—must be held within an alliance of more than two parties. It must be an Atlantic alliance, including the French, as an integral part of NATO.
I make no apology for wanting to see a moral content in the conduct of British foreign policy. I find our history on matters such as slavery not indecent because it had morality associated with it. I find no great joy in the amoral stance taken towards the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in the 1930s, on the argument that this was a matter of close international diplomatic legality and we must therefore keep back. I do not see that as one of our more glorious moments in foreign affairs.
I found the Minister of State's presentation of the Government's case an exercise in a narrow legalistic diplomacy which I hold to be as outdated now as it


has been these last 50 years. It was those concepts which allowed us to get into first one world war and then another. It was the absence of a preparedness to take a moral stance which weakened our whole position between the wars.
As some hon. Members may know, had the New Zealand Government seen fit and been able to agree, I might well at this time be on their frigate sailing towards Mururoa. I made that offer. The question I wish to put to the Government is the one that I have had to face myself. Why should a father seek to put his own life in danger not because he dislikes the French, not because he has some particular axe to grind against them, nor even less because he wants to commit early suicide? It is because in the same way in 1914 there were fathers who held that the world required them to take risks to preserve it for their children.
In that way I feel that if we allow this sort of thing to go on, not just this specific test but this sort of brigandage of private right against public and international requirement, the future for my children is not a world I would willingly see them left to endure. It is on this basis and not merely the immediate impact of possible radiation danger that I oppose the test.
The concept of one scientist being able to say that there is nothing to fear when our scientists have been bought at a lower price and, therefore, their views are less confident, is something I find totally repugnant. I should have thought that all scientists accepted that their ignorance was so profound on these matters that they dare not take any risk and that the cumulative evidence is growing. Every time they push back the frontier of knowledge the greater is the risk that is known.
I read a Press report today that, following the Chinese test, the level of fall-out in Korea is 240 or 250 times the accepted limits. This may be a newspaper story which is lacking in foundation. In the case of both the Chinese test and the proposed French test it is not enough for this country to say that it is none of our concern. It is not enough for this country to say, as the Minister did, that the French must have the right to develop their own nuclear capability. I risk once again being told that it is humbug, but those of us who have been

brought up and reared under the threat of Hiroshima and nuclear warfare reject the whole concept of further testing in the atmosphere. Proliferation from the French and the Chinese is too horrific to contemplate. In this matter in particular the Government's attitude has been that too often they have been like M. Pompidou's poodle, and like that dog they have been showing every sign of degenerate in-breeding.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: The nature of the issue of French nuclear testing has changed radically with the interim ruling of the World Court. I no longer see it simply as a question of whether it is desirable or dangerous for France to detonate its weapons in the atmosphere, but rather whether it is desirable for a country as important and influential as France to be allowed to ignore the jurisdiction of the World Court and to flout the court's rulings without a whisper of protest from its friends and allies.
I find the Government's attitude towards the World Court a trifle perplexing. Surely if we wish to maintain the rule of law we must be prepared to support the decisions of the judges, whether it is politically expedient to do so or not. When we fail to support the court we help to undermine its status and authority. That is self-defeating at the moment, when we are seeking the authority of that court to sustain the legitimacy of our claim against the Icelandic Government.
In the past Britain has not merely been a firm supporter of the World Court but the most active user of it, and some of us might say we have been to that court so often that it has worked out against our national self-interest. I remember the case of the Corfu Channel and the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case. In each of these instances the essential issue in dispute related to freedom on the high seas. These cases have a far closer affinity with French nuclear testing than our Law Officers seem to conceive. One of the specific submissions made to the court by either New Zealand or Australia, and upon which they required a ruling, was whether or not the closure of a large area of the high seas for testing nuclear weapons was compatible with freedom of international law on the high seas.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will enlighten me as to exactly how it is that ever since the war British Governments have been firm and active supporters of the World Court but that in these circumstances they cannot even go so far as to express support for the decision of the court and to deplore France's rejection of it.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkestone): Much play has been made from the Conservative side about whether it is right to express moral indignation in this Chamber. If this were no place in which to express moral indignation there would not be much point in this House discussing foreign or military affairs. There are very few hon. and right hon. Members who have that degree of recent acquaintance with weapons systems which will permit them to speak in this House as experts. Nevertheless, I do not intend to overlay my argument with too much morality. I rarely do. It is a bad habit of mine to engage in arguments with Frenchmen and I try to match them with their own logic. I do not always succeed, but I hope to stick more to logic than morality in my short contribution this evening.
There is a powerful case which can be presented against the exercise of the power given to France by her existing nuclear size, and that argument is in no way diminished if it is maintained that these forthcoming tests are as harmless as a posterior raspberry delivered by a rather flatulent monkey. We have to look at the tests in a totally different context from that which obtained in 1966, and I am not referring to different attitudes about radiation levels. I refer to the nature of the proliferation problem as it exists in 1973, as distinct from the situation as it was in 1966.
The terrible fact is that nuclear weapons are now becoming fairly cheap. It is now much easier than it was a decade ago for countries to embark upon a nuclear weapons programme. Anybody in this House with 5½ kilogrammes of weapons grade plutonium or 17½ kilogrammes of enriched uranium could construct his own nuclear weapon. It would be a simple fission weapon and could act only as a trigger for the big stuff which the French are now trying to perfect, but it is possible.
In terms of cost, a survey was made in 1968 under the auspices of the United Nations. The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently took the 1968 figures and attempted to bring them up to date. It argued on the assumption that a primitive 100 weapon nuclear force would require only 550 kilograms of a special type of plutonium, and plants handling 100 metric tons of uranium per annum would be all that would be required for providing enough explosive to give the State embarking on such a programme some kind of a weapons system, although a primitive one, which would be demolished in the first stage of nuclear war but could nevertheless be used to terrorise other States for a certain period.
When one looks at the States able to do this in technical and financial terms, one sees that 20 of them are already in a position at least to make a decision to embark upon a nuclear weapons programme. Among the 20 are States which are Pacific States by definition, including Australia, India—which has a rather advanced nuclear installation at Trombay—and Japan. I was rather astonished to find, on reading the study, that they also include both South Korea and Taiwan.
We have to consider the impact of this French determination to continue with a programme which seems to have no clearly defined and, to me certainly, no politically acceptable strategic aim, on the Pacific itself. If I were an Australian or a New Zealander—I can think of no better thing to be at the moment—I would regard it as a slap in the face and an insult to my country that President Pompidou should insist on treating the whole of the Pacific Ocean as France's aquatic back yard.
If I were an Australian or a New Zealander with some influence on my country's defence policy—the more so if I were Japanese or perhaps South Korean—I should perhaps feel inclined to argue that, since nuclear devices have come to the Pacific, since it is to be an area in which nuclear weapons may be deployed because they have been tested, we too should go in for this game because we can indeed go in for it if we want to.
Quite apart from the morality or immorality of nuclear weapons, do we imagine that we will be in a safer world if we get that degree of proliferation in


the Pacific or anywhere else? If the Government thought that it would be a safer world, they would not have signed, in a previous incarnation, the non-proliferation treaty. They cannot argue their signature to the treaty away. They obviously regard the dangers of proliferation in much the same light as I do.
What the Opposition object to about the French nuclear tests—and we have no divisions on this issue—is first of all the danger to life because of the radiation hazards but, secondly, the contribution the tests and the French determination behind them are making towards aggravating the proliferation problem which the Government recognised a long time ago as a major problem.
I have always felt that the time to be frank is when one enters into a new relationship with another country. We have just done so with France in the EEC. The Conservative Party wants the Community to evolve into something else. Earlier today we heard talk of economic and monetary union. But I would have thought that if we object to any actions by a French Government on any grounds whatever, it is time to raise these objections very strongly when we are entering into a totally new relationship with the Government and people of France. I would also have thought that our membership of NATO imposes obligations upon us, perhaps even stronger than those imposed upon us by any international court.
The strategic conceptions applied behind the French nuclear programme are destructive not only of the atmospheric conditions of the Pacific Ocean but of the whole accepted strategy of NATO, and possibly will create enormous difficulties between ourselves in NATO and the United States, without which NATO cannot be effective. We are confronted here with a new expression of French chauvinism. If we did not object, we would have no right to talk about international affairs at all.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Recently the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) paid me the compliment of saying of a speech of mine that he wished that he had made it himself. I am happy to reciprocate that compliment. I have every sympathy with

the logic of his argument and the moral stance taken by several hon. Members opposite today. I have every sympathy with all that has been said both about the French and about the Chinese in this matter. But I think it right to remind the House that the motion is aimed only indirectly at the French. It is aimed more directly at Her Majesty's Government and at what the Government ought to be doing.
Hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any reluctance to urge the Government to intervene in good causes overseas wherever I believe it to be right and practicable. I do not think that we should take a narrow view of what is practicable. But even the British Govment have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that in this matter of the French nuclear tests we are getting very near the borderline of what makes sense and what makes political nonsense.
It is fair to the Government to say that their position is unambiguous on the merits of the case. They have consistently taken the view that nuclear tests should not be carried out any longer in the atmosphere and have made that view known to the French Government. They have urged the French Government to sign the partial test ban treaty of 1963. They have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a suspension of all atmospheric nuclear tests. They have impressed on the French Government the importance of the resolution passed at the South Pacific Forum two or three months ago charging the French with deplorable indifference to the effects of their proposed tests on the peoples of the Pacific.
I will leave the detail of these aspects to the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who are to conclude the debate but it is worth remarking in passing that the British judge at the International Court voted with the majority in the recent ruling against the French case. But he did not do so as a servant of Her Majesty's Government, and it is right to say that his vote does not impose any more obligation upon Her Majesty's Government than would the vote of any other judge.
Nor does it impose any more obligation on Her Majesty's Government than it imposes on any other independent Government. Nevertheless, there is no doubt


in my mind that Her Majesty's Government concur in the view expressed by the judge at the International Court. Her Majesty's Government have clearly registered that fact, and I do not see that there is much more they can do.
The motion criticises the Government for their failure to make "adequate protests". What would be an adequate protest in these circumstances? The only significant meaning that can be attached to an adequate protest would be that it should be a protest which would cause the French to change their policy and abandon the proposed tests.
There is nothing more certain than that no matter what the Government did it would make no difference at all to the French intention. I say that because, like everyone else who knows the French people, I know that nuclear weapons are for them a symbol of national independence. This may be immoral, wrong, out of date, but it is a fact. This has always been so, ever since nuclear weapons came into existence.
Let me recall that the French reaction to the débâcle of the intervention in Egypt in 1956 was totally different from ours. Their reaction was one of a total absence of shame about the operation. It was a reaction NA, which argued that this showed that one could not trust even one's closest allies not to let one down in a crisis and that to be independent one must have the ultimate control of the ultimate weapon. Their reaction was to go all out to create the force de frappe with the strongest possible emphasis on the national independence which this force would confer upon them.
It bears recollection that this decision was taken by a French Government before the return to power of General de Gaulle. This was not a Gaullist policy, although of course it was adopted by General de Gaulle, reinforced and expanded. It was net de Gaulle himself but it was the French people who reacted in this way. I recall a few years after these events hearing one of General de Gaulle's closest associates saying in my hearing at a Bilderberg conference that the French attitude in this matter could be expressed in a simple phrase which has stuck in my memory ever since—"Il n'y a de force nuléaire que nationale", meaning that

there is no such thing as nuclear power except under national control. In other words, they have never been interested in nuclear sharing because they believe that a shared weapon is no weapon at all.
It is, therefore, no use trying to dissuade them from a nuclear test programme by saying that it has all been done before by their allies or offering them know-how from our own store of experience or by offering them facilities for underground testing, as the Americans are said to have done in Nevada, or even by offering them a share in allied nuclear weapons. To the French this is all totally irrelevant. Whatever we do and whatever we say and however much we protest, they will go ahead. I regret that this well-meant debate is doomed to sterility.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: No one who listened to the Minister's defensive speech this afternoon can fail to appreciate how embarrassed the Government are over this issue. Britain in particular has a clear moral obligation, and it is highly significant that the Minister never once used that crucial word. The Pitcairn Islands, which are extremely close to the test zone, are a British responsibility. There will certainly be an increase in cancer deaths as a result of these tests, even it the right hon. Gentleman regards them as statistically insignificant. I would remind him that people remain people even if an attempt is made to define them away as statistically insignificant.
Secondly, Britain is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is surely obligated, and well placed, to seek to dissuade France from these further nuclear tests. It cannot be said—here I disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse)—that British pressure would not be influential. Last year the French displayed their sensitivity to world protest by reducing the number of tests in their series from seven to five.
The argument used so cynically by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)—namely, that Britain might be inhibited from taking such a moral stance with France because of her nuclear record policy—does not stand up. Britain was not inhibited in condemning the use of dum-dum bullets before the last war


merely by the fact that British troops had used them in the Boer War, although, I agree, wrongly and regretfully. Britain did not use them again.
The only argument which the Government have consistently posed to explain their deafening silence over this issue is that there is no real evidence of any danger to health. It must be known that there is no objective reason to justify such a dogmatic assertion of complacency. The truth is that no one knows how widespread will be the carcinogenic effects of these tests, partly because the cancer they will produce and the deaths they will cause are indistinguishable from other cancer cases which might arise from other causes.
One authoritative report—I do not apologise for quoting yet one more important report which has not so far been quoted—was recently published by the United States Academy of Sciences. It estimates that cancer deaths arising from fall-out amount to no fewer than 150 a year in the United States alone. I calculate that for the whole world it must be at least 10 times that figure. Even if the French tests—I readily concede this—do not add more than a small percentage to this total, I still think that they have to be justified, because they will be the deaths not of Frenchmen but of people, many as yet unborn, who have no conceivable interest in French military aspirations. Given the almost certain fact—almost all the literature agrees on this—that at least some innocent people, whether statistically insignificant or not, will die if these tests are carried out, it is clearly understood that the latest round of explosions will be much bigger and a great deal dirtier than last year's.
The key question is whether the benefit of these atmospheric tests outweighs the deaths, however small in number, which they are certain to cause. It must be stressed that the real purpose and objective of these tests is to complete the miniaturisation of the trigger and warhead devices so that France may have two nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads by 1976. These tests could be carried out underground which would be entirely compatible with the partial test ban treaty. Apparently the French lack the technology. It would certainly be a great deal more expensive. It is for these reasons that 50 to 100 future Australian

deaths or disabilities are being risked by atmospheric testing. But, given this risk of fatalities, the fundamental question is whether the French defence policy objective is viable.
The paradox is that France is struggling to produce submarine-launched ballistic missiles which will still have a shorter range than Britain's Polaris submarine missiles—missiles which will not be fully operational for another three years. By that time, however, the United States will largely have replaced its Polaris missiles with Poseidon, while at the same time Russia may well have achieved a considerable break-through in its programme to improve submarine-tracking devices. For three years France will continue to lack a credible deterrent, but even at the end of that time technology may well have pushed the illusion of a credible deterrent still further into the future. This is particularly the case when Russia, which is presumably the main target, may continue to improve its anti-ballistic system, since SALT I did not specifically forbid further research on ABM systems, nor did it prevent modernisation and replacement of existing missiles.
In this situation where the French may well be chaising a Gaullist military illusion, like some will-o'-the-wisp, one must ask what are the real reasons why Britain has become so morally compromised over this affair.

Mr. Critchley: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the French nuclear force are not unreasonable, but they are based on the assumption that he believes nuclear weapons can be used first against convential forces. Is that really what he believes?

Mr. Meacher: I do not see that my remarks are necessarily based on that premise. I do not concede that point. I do not think it is relevant to my main argument.
The real question that needs to be asked is why the British Government have allowed themselves to become so morally compromised over this affair, because I do not think the reasons were brought out in the Minister's speech. There can be no doubt that one reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said in his excellent speech, is the Prime Minister's domestic political needs for French good will towards a


compromise over CAP and over Community regional policy. But there is a deeper reason still for the reluctance of the British Government to intervene, and that is the present Government's interest—however much they seek to deny it—in an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.
What has been quietly left unspelt out in this affair is the interest of both sides in the other's nuclear advance, for each side has elements that the other really needs for a more convincing stake in the nuclear power game. The French have their own supplies of natural uranium, and they have their two reactors for producing tritium, which is one of the basic materials necessary for the manufacture of hydrogen weapons, while we have superior technology and greater intelligence data about Russian nuclear facilities.
It is no doubt part of the calculation of Her Majesty's Government that six or seven jointly-owned nuclear submarines within a combined Anglo-French nuclear framework would present a far more credible deterrent than either country could operate by itself. But if these are the kind of considerations and manoeuvres that lie behind the Government's official silence over these tests, as I believe they are, they represent a callous sacrifice of some innocent lives as well as a serious abuse of Britain's rôle in today's power politics. For these reasons I strongly condemn the Government.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on giving the House an opportunity to debate this extremely important topic. I had the privilege over a year ago of being the only Member on this side of the House to sign the hon. Gentleman's motion on this issue and I have stuck with him consistently. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) will note what I say when he quietly allows the hon. Member for West Lothian to be the only one who is allowed to make any comment on this subject.
I very much respect the rôle which has been played by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the past, and I realise the rôle he played in the test ban treaty. What I

do not fully understand is that, having played that rôle with such determination under Mr. Macmillan, he can now play his rôle so quietly under the present Prime Minister. Time and again in this House I have been of the view—possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will put me right—that we have played this one very quietly and that our protests have been almost in corners. I should like to see somebody on the Government Front Bench rise at the Dispatch Box and thoroughly deplore what is going on—not just on the lines "We do not think what is happening is very good", coupling the Chinese with what is going on, but in a forthright way condemning the tests.
I must take up the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint. West, who said that we had no right to protest because of what we did in 1953. In 1953 I was at prep school and was unable to have any influence on any Government at that time. If that is supposed to preclude me from having any influence on present events, heaven help the next generation. I was not able to come to a decision then—although perhaps my hon. Friend was able to make up his mind—but my decision now is that we have done the wrong thing. Surely we should not be influenced by what was done in this House 20 years ago. I hope that in 20 years' time when a young Member disagrees with me in this House—if the people of Louth decide to keep me—that young man will not be influenced by what happened in 1973.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has left the Chamber, because I thought that his point about scientists and their effect on the situation was the weakest which has been made in this debate. The truth is that when scientists put down their thoughts in leading scientific journals, it is a matter of very great importance to them since their whole reputation is involved. Therefore, he should think again about what he said. Science has made enormous advances in the last 10 years and the situation has become considerably more dangerous. What the scientists say is good enough for me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West rather brilliantly criticised the Opposition for their attitude on this subject. He did it with wit and sarcasm


rather than by the direct hit. I must confess that the men who most appeal to me in political history number among them Wilberforce, Bright and Russell. If such men had not been able to make moral protests and had not been able to make some of the great moral statements of the day, I doubt very much whether this House would have led the world in the way it did in the periods in which those men existed. Although my hon. Friend dismissed moral indignation in a puff of smoke on the lines that we are not the nation we were 100 years ago, surely that does not stop us getting up and saying that we believe somebody else is wrong.
If we think in terms of the European movement, of which I thoroughly approve, we must look at the matter from that sort of standpoint. If in one's own family one's son does something wrong and then something right, one approves him for doing right and criticises him for doing wrong. But one criticises him with as much vigour and determination as one praises him for doing right. It would have been a lot healthier if the British Government had said to the French Government "We agree with you on A, B and C, but as for point D we deplore what you are doing and you cannot expect our support."
I also agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian about China. Perhaps it was a clever way out for China. It was a way for China to have a position on this subject, though it is bad for the French to be able to do their nuclear tests because it gives the Chinese a way out. It would be a lot better for the Western world if there were no one in the Western world doing tests. In that way we should have a stronger position when making statements vis-à-vis the Chinese and other nations.
I shall not add to the more than competent scientific comments on the Pitcairn Islands. I am willing to believe—because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said so—that the "upping" of danger will be 10 per cent. He said that it was not very much, and he may be right. But it is 10 per cent. too much, and it is that 10 per cent. which I am against.
I was hoping so hard that I should be able to get through three months without voting against my party. Here we are again. I have not survived. I would have made it by the end of this week. I should then have gone 12 whole weeks without opposing my Government. Concerning the Government's amendment, I shall abstain. Concerning the Opposition motion, I shall vote with the hon. Member for West Lothian and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

6.22 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I at once commend the courageous and admirable speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), and I express the hope that those like-minded hon. Members who have spoken in the same sense will join the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby.
As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the Opposition motion, which I invite the House to support, is in two parts. The first deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court on nuclear testing. The second supports the Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests.
The Government's amendment fails to deal with either of the propositions in the Opposition motion. In the face of France's announced determination to go on with the tests and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take any action in regard to it, in our view the Government amendment amounts to no more than a pious and irrelevant platitude in the circumstances that we face.
During the debate several questions of great importance have been raised, and we look forward to hearing the answers of the learned Attorney-General. For my part I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a direct question. Do Her Majesty's Government support the Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests and in their attempts to enlist the aid of the International Court to bring to an end the threatened tests? If not, why not?
If Her Majesty's Government support the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, how have they manifested that


opposition? They have not done it in this House. They have not done it in their amendment. I find it a matter of great regret that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has not yet done it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) opened the debate in a superb manner which gave all of us great pleasure. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it was, after all, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who played a leading part in bringing about the 1963 treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. If what the Minister of State said earlier today is true, I wonder why the Foreign Secretary bothered.
All that the Foreign Secretary said about the matter in the foreign affairs debate last week was:
Our position is that we do not think that these tests should be carried out, but the French are capable of making their decisions for themselves. They will no doubt decide in the light of all the approaches which have been made to them whether to go ahead.
That sounds more like condonation of France's intended and announced defiance of the International Court and, through it, the international community than a condemnation of it. The speech of the Minister of State today combined much special pleading with only a faint and certainly not specific disapproval of what the French are planning, with no hint of condemnation.
The 1963 test ban treaty was largely achieved because of increasing awareness of the dangers to the health of present and future generations which most responsible opinion considers to be involved in the dispersal over wide areas of the globe of radioactive fall-out. Each atmospheric nuclear test is now thought by many of the world's greatest scientists to make an irreversible contribution to the pollution of the human environment.
Professor Linus Pauling, who has been described as the greatest geneticist in the world and is twice a Nobel Prize winner, has translated that proposition into stark human terms. He has estimated that about 1,700 deformed babies would be born in Australia if the French exploded a 20-megaton hydrogen bomb and that, of those, 1,500 would die. He has said that 500,000 unborn children would suffer gross mental and physical defects and that the same number of people would con-

tract cancer. If there are scientists ready to be bought, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) suggested. Dr. Pauling is not one of them.

Mr. Critehley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to study my speech a little more carefully. I did not say that. I passed a light-hearted comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Very well: a serious comment, if hon. Members prefer—that there are experts in all walks of life who are easibly obtainable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Buyable."]

Sir Elwyn Jones: Having sought to withdraw what he said, the hon. Gentleman compounded his offence. However, let me proceed with what I was saying when I was so unhelpfully interrupted.
The maturing of national and international attitudes towards nuclear weapons development, especially nuclear testing which gives rise to nuclear fallout, has been evidenced by a series of treaties and resolutions. Of pre-eminent importance is the 1963 treaty. The principal provision of that treaty prohibits the carrying out of nuclear explosions if their radiation debris is present outside the territorial limits of the testing State. That treaty is now accepted by more than 100 States, and its basic demand has been constantly and almost universally stressed by members of the world community, culminating last year in the Stockholm resolution on nuclear weapon tests passed by the Conference on the Environment.
As the Attorney-General for New Zealand submitted to The Hague Court, during the same period and as a corollary to the intensified governmental and popular action to control and prohibit nuclear weapons and their testing in the atmosphere and elsewhere and to safeguard the environment and natural resources, there has also been a growing juridical perception and acceptance in legal circles of the nature and quality of this activity and a rapid development of the law concerning it.
As I understand it, the French attitude is that the French tests concern no one but the French and that they are entirely within their own French domestic jurisdiction. But, as a learned article in this week's New Law Journal points out:
Firstly, there are not many questions which international law leaves to the exclusive competence of States. Secondly, it is inconceivable


that the use by State X of its own territory in such a way that the measurable and harmful effects are felt in the territory and by the population of States Y and Z is such a question.
There is authority to the contrary in the Frail Smelter arbitration between the United States and Canada relating to the pollution of the air by fumes from smelting operations; a fortiori if the nuisance committed or threatened by X is to occur on the high seas and not solely on X's territory. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) in his admirable speech. The French testing zone apparently extends for 120 miles out to sea from Mururoa.
The tests concern above all the nations in and around the Pacific Ocean. They are above all questions not of French business but of the business of the Pacific nations.
It is true that some scientists do not agree with the assessment made by my hon. Friend on the basis of the expert scientific knowledge which he cited to the House. The most extreme statement of the opposite point of view has been expressed by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He went so far as to say last week, and in effect repeated today, that according to the evidence available to the Foreign Office there is no danger whatever to health as a result of the French or Chinese tests in the atmosphere. I doubt whether even the French would go so far as to say that. That assertion flies in the face of the evidence submitted by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to the International Court.
I earnestly invite the right hon. Gentleman, when he has time to do so, to read paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the Australian application to the court. I cannot conceive that he would have made that rash and unqualified statement had he given serious thought to the quality of the evidence offered by the spokesmen of Australia and New Zealand to the court. The conclusion of that evidence was:
There is undoubtedly some threat to the life, health and wellbeing of exposed individuals and their descendants from radiation doses arising from radioactive fallout generated by nuclear explosions.
The Minister was not even prepared to go so far as to support the somewhat cautious expression of opinion by the court that the information submitted to the court, including reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation between 1958 and 1972,
does not exclude the possibility that damage to Australia might be shown to be caused by the deposit on Australian territory of radioactive fallout resulting from such tests and to be irreparable.
The court concluded that it was
satisfied that it should indicate interim measures of protection in order to preserve the right claimed by Australia in respect of the deposit of radioactive fallout on her territory
and commanded that the French Government should avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radioactive fall-out on Australian territory.
Does the Attorney-General agree with those conclusions and recommendations of the International Court? We have not even had any expression of agreement with them from the Government. That order from the court had the support of eight of the 14 judges, and the majority included one of this country's most eminent international lawyers, Sir Humphrey Waldock, who exercised his own distinguished independent judgment. I have found regrettable the attitude of the Minister of State towards the interim orders of the court.
While it is true that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, international law in its present form does not call on other Powers to enforce the judgment of the court, it would have befitted the Government at least to say a word of condemnation of France's contemptuous attitude towards the order.

Mr. Woodhouse: Mr. Woodhouserose—

Sir Elwyn Jones: I will not give way. I am sorry. Pressure of time is too great. I promised to finish in five minutes.
Our obligations across the world make it especially important that not only should we respect the rule of law but that we should take all appropriate diplomatic and legal steps to promote it and in particular to sustain the authority of the International Court. After all, we


ourselves have recently sought, and now seek to enforce against the Icelandic Government, the very kind of remedy which the Australian and the New Zealand Governments have now obtained, an order for provisional measures against the Icelandic Government. We have shown that we are prepared to use force to enforce those provisional measures.
Pressure from the international community is essential to give support to the court's decision, and in that community our voice should be heard loud and clear. Instead, all we have had is a largely submissive bleat about the French case from the Government. Their legal and moral duty is to do far more than they have done. I commend the staunch statements on the matter by the hon. Members for Louth and Bolton, East.
Where does the Government's political duty lie? This country's duty, as head of the Commonwealth and its only European member, is to stand by Australia and New Zealand and our Pacific dependencies and to support in clear terms their denunciation of the tests.
In this context it is important to realise that the opposition to the tests is not confined to Australia and New Zealand, to which we and France herself owe so much. There was a moving reminder of that in the note from the Australian Prime Minister to the French Government in February this year, when he said:
The presence of over 25,000 Australian graves in France bears full witness to the sacrifices made by Australia.
New Zealand could say much the same:
The Australian Government hopes that your Government will not be led by its concern for the security of France to seek to strengthen that security at the expense of the welfare and peace of mind of other peoples.
I recently returned from a visit to the South Pacific, where I experienced for myself the deep concern felt among the inhabitants of places such as Fiji, Nauru and others of the Pacific islands about the planned French nuclear tests. It is a significant fact—the Government should take note of it—that when, in August 1971, the new Pacific States of Fiji, West Samoa, Tonga, Nauru and the Cook Islands all joined with Australia and New Zealand for the first South Pacific forum, their first act was to denounce French testing and send a joint protest to Paris.
That is the kind of action Her Majesty's Government should have taken. Instead, they have stubbornly kept out of step with what I believe to be the opinion of most people in our country, of trade unionists and others in all walks of life, and of civilised opinion in most of the rest of the world.
I appeal to the Government, even now, to make at the end of the debate a clear denunciation in specific terms of the proposed French nuclear tests and a demand to the Government of France, which would come well indeed from the Attorney-General, in the name of so many peoples of the world who have so far looked to us in vain for a lead, that the judgment of the International Court should be respected and applied.

6.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The terms of the motion are selected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. They have chosen to frame the motion in a way which does not include straightforward political condemnation or moral assertions about the attitude which should be adopted but, in its first part, deals precisely and completely with the protest which it says the Government should make to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague.
The motion is worded solely upon the decision of the International Court of Justice and what action the Government ought to take in the face of the preliminary measures indicated by the International Court of Justice in the case recently heard at The Hague. The issues therefore involve questions of international law, and if there are any complaints about a legalistic reply I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I deal with these important matters and issues.
I appreciate the strong feelings expressed in the debate, principally by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who moved the motion with skill, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and by others of my hon. Friends. I draw to their attention the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Government have made it clear that they deplore the resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests and, in the


broad terms of the amendment, express their concern and share the widespread concern that has been expressed about the continued testing of nuclear weapons.
The framework of the debate has been set by the Opposition, and it is to the first part of the motion as it relates to the International Court that I must now turn. It is the fact in international law that the International Court has power, and always has had power, to determine questions of its own jurisdiction under Article 36 of the statute. The court may make a valid interim order before reaching a final decision as to its jurisdiction. So long as the International Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made on jurisdiction it is permitted, within its procedures and within its own jurisprudence, to make an indication of provisional measures. In this case, that is what the court did in respect of the application made by New Zealand and Australia.
It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that, under international law, a State party to which such an order is addressed should comply with such a provisional order, and it is their view of international law that, once a State party has had addressed to it such a declaration by the International Court, it is the duty of that nation to obey that order. As far as I am aware—and I challenge the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) to deny this—it has never been the practice in international law for other States which are not parties to the proceedings to take diplomatic or other action when a State party which is denying the jurisdiction of the International Court takes no action to obey or to implement an interim order directed to that State. There is no legal obligation upon Her Majesty's Government under international law to protest should France not comply with the provisional measures indicated on 22nd June.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would not the Attorney-General agree that, bearing in mind that it is Australia and New Zealand which are the applicants, and that we have special responsibility in regard to them and to the inhabitants of our possessions in the South Pacific, we would be entitled to raise a vigorous voice in protest?

The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are entitled to make a protest, or to make our views known as a matter of policy or as a matter of judgment, so be it. All I am saying in reply to the terms of the motion drawn up by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that where a State is not a party to proceedings it is not, and has not been on the few occasions when interim measures have been ordered, a requirement of international law that that State should intervene to make the protest which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seek to have made.
It was not done in the Anglo-Iranian case when right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in office at the time of Mr. Attlee's Government. It has not been done in the recent Icelandic fisheries case to which Her Majesty's Government are a party. There have not been official protests that the order of the court has not been obeyed by the Icelandic Government. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell the House which countries have made official protests of the kind which, I understand, some hon. Gentlemen are saying is required by international law.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been open to the Government to intervene at an earlier stage of the proceedings as amicus curiae and make submissions which might have helped the court to take a different view from that which it took? If the Government take the view, as they appear to do from what was said earlier, that there is little to be feared from the French tests, why did they not intervene in the proceedings and make that point? Does not the Government's failure to intervene suggest that they do not put much faith in the case?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is no more significant than other nations not having intervened in the Icelandic fisheries case. No other country has sought to become amicus curiae in order to intervene before the International Court. This was an application by two countries directed to a particular State party. If there had been a denial of a


legal right vested in the United Kingdom, there might have been a breach of international law.
Opposition Members have chosen to debate the motion in terms of the action taken by the International Court. They have not set down a motion setting out on political or moral grounds what the United Kingdom should have done. But even if France is in breach of an international obligation, that obligation is not owed substantially to the United Kingdom, and there is no substantive international legal right of the United Kingdom which would seem to be infringed.

Mr. Laurance Reed: If my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that the British Government should not support decisions of the International Court when we are not a party to them, how does the United Kingdom expect to get international support for cases which it takes before the court and wins?

The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friend looks at Article 59 of the International Court's own statute he will see that, whether we like it or not, by the statute which establishes the International Court the fundamental principle of the International Court's operations in contentious litigation is that its decisions are binding only upon the parties. and the States which set up the International Court made that clear.
Where a State party is directed to do or to refrain from doing certain acts in accordance with provisional measures ordered by the court, that State should so do. The United Kingdom has no locus standi in international law to make a formal protest if any party, for whatever reason, does not comply with an order of the court. There is no requirement that the United Kingdom should protest in this case, and the statutes and the jurisprudence of the court show this.
Her Majesty's Government's attitude has been wholly consistent with the attitude of successive Governments. The United Kingdom has always upheld the authority of the court when we have been a party before it, whether the court has been in our favour or not. The Government of Mr. Attlee took a similar view in the 1951 Anglo-Iranian dispute.
The rule of law that State parties should comply with orders of the court is accepted by the Government, but when it comes to an interim measure, when one of the parties does not accept that the court has jurisdiction, when that still has to be decided, when the court has merely set out interim measures based upon a preliminary, prima facie view of the jurisdiction, in international law there is no proper opportunity for the United Kingdom, and certainly no obligation on the United Kingdom, to protest.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, however, the position of the Government about nuclear testing has been made clear in the United Nations and elsewhere: that is, that the United Kingdom hopes and expects that other nations will agree to the conditions of the partial test ban treaty. That view was repeated in 1972 and this year. Of course there are strong feelings on this subject, which no Government take lightly. The views of the Government are on record and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State reiterated them today. To put it beyond doubt, the amendment expresses our widespread concern about atmospheric tests by any State.
We should bear in mind the facts when we consider whether there should be a protest, even if not in international law, by Her Majesty's Government. The facts presented today show that the nuclear testing in the atmosphere is to take place, as in the past, in an uninhabited zone of ocean which, in the direction of the prevailing winds, is 4,000 miles from the nearest land. The Pitcairn Islands are 600 miles away, but monitoring has been done there since the tests began in the time of the Labour Government and that monitoring has shown that there is no detectable risk. The French have been careful—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member knows, there are two considerations with regard to fall-out. There is local fall-out, with an effect up to a few hundred miles, and there is the long-term effect. It is the latter that is being monitored by the team on Pitcairn Island. The report made by the Australians to their own Academy of Science cannot be brushed aside as unimportant, irrelevant or incorrect.
The French have been careful to time their tests to suit them to the prevailing


winds from Mururoa into the uninhabited zone, which stretches for 4,000 miles. There has been a monitoring team during all the years of testing. When the French have detonated their devices, we have never detected radiation levels showing a danger to health.
World public concern has focused of course on the second effect—world-wide fall-out—which is the only one that could affect Australia and New Zealand. I must repeat what my right hon. Friend has already said. Our estimate is that world-wide fall-out is detectable but insignificant in terms of damage to health. The hon. Member for West Lothian maintained that there was a mounting danger to health from strontium 90 and other long-lived elements. I am informed that the accumulated activity from these elements has been showing a decline in the past few years.
The hon. Member also referred to the work of three scientists, Mr. Tampling and his colleagues, and asked whether we were aware of their work. We are, but their speculation about nuclear effects is by no means acceptable to scientists in general. Therefore, I take it that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) jocularly replied to an intervention about purchasing scientific information, he meant that there are scientists who would and who will disagree with some of these conclusions.

However, as a result of the partial test ban treaty, the level of radioactivity in the atmosphere has fallen greatly in the past 10 years. The present level of testing by the French and the Chinese is not such as to cause any fears on health grounds. My right hon. Friend said that their tests are responsible for one-tenth of the total annual radiation that goes to people in the Southern Hemisphere. It reached only one-hundredth part of the reference levels recorded by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to this debate as humbug. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, in order to dress it up with some respectability has drawn in the International Court of Justice, but the requirements of international law do not demand a protest by Her Majesty's Government. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have always been guilty of great humbug over all questions of nuclear weapons. They did not make their protest in 1967, 1968 or 1969. I would ask the House to reject the motion and to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 266.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.

Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Alison, Michael (Barkaton Ash)
Buck, Antony
Dixon, Piers

Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.

Astor, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh

Atkins, Humphrey
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Awdry, Daniel
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald

Batsford, Brian
Chapman, Sydney
Farr, John

Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Rt.Hn. Christopher
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Biffen, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet

Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim

Blaker, Peter
Coombs, Derek
Foster, Sir John

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooper, A. E.
Fowler, Norman

Body, Richard
Cordle, John
Fox, Marcus

Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Bossom, Sir Clive
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward

Bowden, Andrew
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David

Braine, Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Dr. Alan

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip

Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Gorst, John

Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul
Gower, Raymond



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Rost, Peter

Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, R. A.
Royle, Anthony

Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman

Grylis, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Scott, Nicholas

Gummer, J. Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David
Shersby, Michael

Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Simeons, Charles

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.

Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Soref, Harold

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith

Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John

Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sproat, Iain

Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith

Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stanbrook, Ivor

Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Seiner)

Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stokes, John

Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Hornby, Richard
Mudd, David
Tebbit, Norman



Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hunt, John
Nott, John
Tilney, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tugendhat, Christopher

James, David
Osborn, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Dame Joan

Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Waddington, David

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis

Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)

Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wiggin, Jerry

King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wilkinson, John

Kinsey, J. R.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Winterton, Nicholas

Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramaden, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Lamont, Norman
Redmond, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark

Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Worsley, Marcus

Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Longdon, Sir Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. Walter Clegg and

Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Coleman, Donald

Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Concannon, J. D.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Conlan, Bernard

Allen, Scholefield
Bradley, Tom
Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawahaw, Richard

Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Cronin, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dalyell, Tam

Baxter, William
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Deakins, Eric

Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey






Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.

Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John

Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kilfedder, James
Probert, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Radice, Giles

Driberg, Tom
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey

Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor

Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Bec'n & R'dnor)

Ellis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.

Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Ewing, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Forrester, John
Machin, George
Sillars, James

Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius

Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Skinner, Dennis

Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William

Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootie)
Stallard, A. W.

Gourley, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

Hatton, F.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strang, Gavin

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael
Swain, Thomas

Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tinn, James

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward
Tope, Graham

Heifer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Torney, Tom

Hilton, W. S.
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael

Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Valey, Eric G.

Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David

Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitehead, Phillip

Janner, Greyville
Oram, Bert
Whitlock, William

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pardoe, John


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. John Golding and

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test bantreaty.

TEACHER SUPPLY

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the Government's intention to reduce the number of initial training places in colleges and polytechnic departments of education from 114,000 in 1971–72 to between 60,000 and 70,000 by 1981; deplores the instruction to area training organisations to cut back the intake of non-graduate students in 1974; and believes that a teaching force rigidly limited to the size stipulated by the Government cannot meet the full educational needs of the next decade and will result in severe and damaging shortages of trained teachers in many parts of England and Wales.
I begin with a point which I believe will unite the Secretary of State and myself and, indeed, the entire House. That is the conviction that the teacher remains incomparably the most important element in our education system. Were I to say simply "the most important", that would be the most vacuous sort of platitude. Therefore, I say "incomparably the most important" element. We may have arguments and views about the importance of the quality and age of school buildings and arguments about the proper organisation of secondary education, but I am sure that we all agree that all our plans fail and all our hopes are dashed if we do not have teachers in the right quantity, of the right quality and with the right attitude.
About quality I think that most of us are satisfied. Many things that have happened over the last year and will happen during the next six years—I refer in particular to the third cycle of the James proposals—seem likely to improve quality.
About quantity we are in dispute this evening, but before I pass on to that I want to say one thing about the attitude of the teaching profession. Attitude is deeply dependent on and related to the morale of the teaching profession, and the morale is deeply related to and dependent on the teachers' view of the importance that the State attaches to their work and the importance that the country attaches to their work as reflected by the Government's attitude towards them.
I do not believe that anything that the Government have done in terms of

either salary or supply over the last three years has made the teacher feel that his crucial rôle in education is properly and fully appreciated. As a result, I am sure that teaching morale has suffered. That is especially so in London, but it is not a problem which is exclusive to London by any means.
Despite that, I say again that I am sure that the Secretary of State and I agree about the crucial rôle that the teacher plays in all our education equations. Nor shall we disagree about the targets that the Government have set for their future teaching force. The Government want to see by 1981 the equivalent of 510,000 full-time teachers in maintained schools. Of that number 465,000 will teach children above five years of age. That target—the plus-five target—is substantially smaller than targets set by previous Governments.
In 1965 we talked of 510,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools. In 1968 we aimed at 526,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools. I am sure that, in part, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State will say that that change of emphasis, of direction and of estimate is a result of projected changes in the birth rate. I want to say two things about that.
First, it is in part the result of a calculated decision of the Government to aim for no better than classes of 40 and 30, rather than the class of 30 in primary and secondary schools for which the Labour Government aimed. But a more important point is that even if the reduction in birthrate was the crucial factor in the number of teachers that the Government want and hope to see in schools in 1981, that would be deeply indicative of the different attitudes of the two major parties. For one party, the Government party, a reduction in the birth rate can be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to save money. For the Labour Party a reduction in the birth rate would be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to improve standards. That is the crucial difference between us.
That reduced target of 465,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools is to be achieved by an enormous literal reduction in college of education places. There are now 114,000 places. By 1981 that number will have been cut by almost


50 per cent. to between 60,000 and 70,000 places.
In their White Paper the Government tried to explain what that figure meant in real terms. They described it as a 10 per cent. increase, even when account was taken of an increased school population—a 10 per cent. improvement in the present staffing figure. The Government said that it was a future pupil-teacher ratio of 18·5 to 1. That figure has been amended, if not by the right hon. Lady, by the professional Press. It is in reality 19·3 to 1. The lower figure is possible only if we pretend that teachers in "in-service" training are really in front of their classes. But I make no bones or fuss about that subterfuge. Indeed, I go on to talk as though the 18.5 figure quoted in the White Paper was accurate.
Mr. Norman Morris of the University of Manchester, by the application of those mystic tables that relate staff-pupil ratio to class sizes, has analysed what that figure—the best possible interpretation of the Government's intention—18·5 to 1, means in terms of class sizes. It means, averaging it out throughout the country classes of 30 in secondary schools and 40 in primary schools.
The Government may regard that as an adequate target. The Opposition do not believe those figures and that aspiration to be remotely acceptable for 1981.
Certainly the idea of 40 pupils in a primary class is unacceptable to us. It is particularly so because in the areas of greatest need, for children with the most desperate educational problem, the classes should be appreciably smaller than 40. When a national average of 40 is the going figure, the figures in the most deprived and depressed areas are often a great deal larger than that.
Indeed, the policy is very clear. Under the Government's intentions it is not simply that areas of greatest need and most desperation are not getting adequate teachers. They will never get adequate teachers. Certainly the figures specified by the Government will not produce a teaching force that is remotely adequate to meet the needs of the most deprived and depressed areas. The figures of 40 in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools obscure many regional difficulties. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appre-

ciates that those are difficulties which often amount to near crisis and on occasions produce crisis. That is true particularly of secondary schools.
The White Paper records a gradual improvement in the overall figures of teachers to pupils over the 10 years from 1961 to 1971. In fact, it is the Secretary of State's only recorded compliment to the last Labour Government. The White Paper goes on to record that only 2·5 per cent. of primary classes have more than 40 pupils. But the White Paper is significantly silent about the size of classes in secondary education and about the number of classes which have more than 30 pupils.
That is because in city after city there is an increasing shortage of teachers and a particular shortage in secondary schools. That is a shortage which is obscured by the figures of overall improvement. That is dramatically true in London and applies to the ILEA and outer boroughs. It is also true of some remote counties, and some old industrial cities and towns. Within those old cities and towns there are areas of special need—namely, schools with shortages even more desperate than the overall shortages of the town and remote country areas.
The areas of special need or shortage come basically under two heads. There are those decaying central areas where the population has not shown a rapid decline. Second, there are new housing estates into which the old central area residents have gone. Such areas need extra educational resources but they often receive less than the national average. Under the Government's present policy, I believe that that imbalance will continue.
We must face the fact that already some of the special areas within deprived LEAs are facing near-crisis situations. Many of our old towns report a 10 per cent. shortage of teachers in terms of the staff available when their schools open in September. I know that the Under-Secretary of State always complains when I quote the evidence of LEAs. That is the evidence of real people talking about the real world and their real problems. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example. I can give him more if he doubts that example. In the Kirby area of Liverpool—that is a specially difficult locality


for teachers within a difficult LEA—there is a general shortage of teachers. Out of 300 places which should be filled in September there is a net shortage of 50 teachers. Those figures do not represent the difference between adequate and inadequate education, but the difference between adequate education and educational crisis.
It is that grave shortage which we believe the Government's limited aspiration is certain to increase and to intensify. I suppose it is possible for the right hon. Lady to argue that there are enough teachers in the country as a whole but that for some reason they are not going to Kirby, to London, to Salford and to the other places which I have contacted during the last four days. If that is the case, I hope she will tell us. If she thinks that the quota system is wrong and should be changed, let her tell us why.
There is only one of two conclusions which we can draw. Either the quota system is wrong or the overall supply is inadequate. If the supply is inadequate, it will be made more inadequate as demand increases over the next eight or 10 years and if the teacher supply does not increase sufficiently to meet it.
Against that background we must consider and judge the Government's intention to cut initial training places. I see at once that there can be no lasting solution to the teacher shortage until there are substantial changes in teachers' pay. That is not a matter of the overall level of teachers' pay. The structure of pay as a whole has to be improved. There must be incentives to attract teachers into the areas with the severest difficulty. There must be a substantial change with the system of allowances shifting towards those teachers who work with the underprivileged rather than, as often is the case now, concentrating on those who work with the intellectually gifted. Those are alterations which I want to see in what I hope will become the free negotiating machinery between teachers and local authorities.
Of course, that is the supply side of the teacher equation. We must get the demand side right as well. If we are to get that side right for the maintained schools there is no better criterion than the independent schools. I know that

the right hon. Lady is the defender and protector of the independent schools. I know that she has made speeches in which she has said that one of the peculiar contributions to English education is the small classes which independent schools can provide for the boys and girls who go to them. She is right about that. There are about 13 pupils for every teacher in the independent sector.
I ask the right hon. Lady again the question which I asked her during the White Paper debate and which she did not answer. If 13·1:1 is right for the independent sector, why is that a figure which the maintained sector cannot even aim at? If it is good enough for the independent schools, why is not it good enough for the schools for which the right hon. Lady has responsibility? What does she believe to be the ideal size of class? We know from a fortnight ago that she thinks that some grammar schools should have smaller sixth form groups. That is an interesting view from a Secretary of State who, by the prevention of comprehensive reorganisation has perpetuated the small grammar school and the consequent small sixth form.
Perhaps today we may hear the right hon. Lady's views about the proper size of classes and, therefore, the need for extra teachers in areas of special difficulty such as areas representing the socially under-privileged. At least the Opposition's view about that are absolutely clear. The Opposition's view is that the Government's aim is too low, that its aspirations are too limited and that the problems of the cities and of the poor areas within the cities are ignored. The duty to encourage those authorities which employ too few teachers to employ more has been abdicated.
A great opportunity has been missed. It was an opportunity to meet the needs of the area of shortage. It was an opportunity to get smaller classes in the educational priority areas. It is an opportunity to mount a great drive to provide suitable small remedial classes for the children who need such education and very often do not receive it because of the present shortage of teachers. It is also a missed opportunity to expand the rôle of teachers in a way in which the Department of Education and Science, in a more philosophical


moment, believed it should be expanded. That is the real difference between the Government's policy and the one which the Opposition would have them adopt.
The present system is an opportunity for some cheese-paring or for real improvement and expansion. Our criticism is that that opportunity has not been taken. The number of college of education places now available could be used for a vast expansion of educational standards. The Government have, however, set a rigid limit on how many teachers they are prepared to provide. The colleges are required to cut their intake to meet that rigid limit. Because of that—this is the second part of our charge—the country is facing a grave potential difficulty. As well as claiming that the Government's target is too low, we fear—fear is the appropriate word because it will give us no joy in four or five years' time if our fears turn out to be correct—that the Government's target will not be reached.
We fear that the achievement of 510,000 teachers, or the adequacy of that figure, depends on too many imponderables and that with so many imponderables in the equation it is irresponsible for the Government to have provided a minimum number of places to meet even their limited aspirations. I shall put some of the imponderables to the right hon. Lady in the hope that she will comment on them later.
This should be the most difficult time to judge how many students from colleges are going into teaching. If the Diploma of Higher Education has any real meaning, if it is a really flexible qualification which may result in someone taking a diploma or degree which does not take him automatically into teaching, it is almost impossible to predict how many college of education students, as I loosely call them, will eventually go into teaching.
Equally, the number of graduates who go into teaching is uncertain. The number of graduates who entered the teaching profession in the last five years is a direct result of high graduate unemployment. But that, fortunately, is tailing off. The right hon. Lady will recall that the letter which she sent out 10 days ago about the reduced numbers in colleges of education drew attention to the fact that the number of graduates applying for college

of education diplomas decreased compared with last year. I hope that graduate unemployment is decreasing, not only in terms of the interests of the graduates but also in terms of the interests of the schools. I do not want schools to be populated by graduates because, although they entered university intending to do something else, there was no other job for them when they left university. I do not believe that the reluctant teacher is in the interests of the education profession any more than it is in the interests of the teachers themselves.
Those graduates who go determined into teaching are clearly an essential part of the teaching profession, but those who go, as Mr. Martyn Berry described them in The Times Higher Educational Supplement, of March 2nd as "graduates driven into teaching by depression" are something which, if possible, we ought to avoid.
I offer the right hon. Lady a third imponderable. Is she sure of her assumption about wastage in the profession between now and 1981? I hope she is. I am told that she will advise her advisory committee on Wednesday that if there is a 1 per cent. error in the assumption of wastage there will be 5,000 teachers fewer every year going into the profession; 5,000 teachers fewer between now and 1981 is an enormous reduction on her own target. It is because of those extraordinarily imprecise qualities in the teacher supply ratio that many of us regret the Government's marked reluctance to answer any of the questions about how the teacher supply figures were arrived at.
For the first time, for instance, the appropriate unions were not asked to comment on the draft circular dealing with higher education in the public sector before it went out. Anyone who was here during the Adjournment debate of 4th April, or who has read the report of that debate, cannot escape the impression that the Government decided to take their decision first and to cobble the evidence between them about the decision afterwards. The Under-Secretary's performance on 4th April was typical. I do not mean it was typical of him; I mean it was typical of the Government's record. It was comparatively accurate. In columns 577 to 583 of the OFFICIAL REPORT it is reported


how he set out the Government's intention in detail, explaining how the figures were arrived at. In column 584, with apparent seriousness—it is never easy to tell with the Under-Secretary—he is reported as saying:
What is needed now is to establish … the basic facts".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 584.]
We all say "amen" to that.
Some of us might say that what was needed was to establish the basic facts before the basic decisions were taken. Perhaps the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers is supposed to provide them. The advisory committee is meeting for the first time on Wednesday. Yet, as the national advisory committee assembles, it must know that all the important decisions on teacher training and supply have been taken. Not only have the decisions been taken; the Secretary of State has instructed that they be implemented.
The cuts in college places for 1974 are now being worked out in detail—worked out on the instruction of the Secretary of State. We are left with the gloomy possibility that the Government are simply hoping that they can meet the targets and exceed them by a fraction in the hope that the birth rate will continue to decline and that the school population will not rise, as was expected when the White Paper was drawn up. A decline in the birth rate is not quite the same as a fall in the school population. That will certainly continue to rise. Indeed, I understand that the advisory committee will be told on Wednesday that if the 10 per cent. improvement figure is to be met it may not need 510,000 teachers by that year, but there will certainly be a need for something in excess of 509,000, which seems to me as good as anything that the Secretary of State will get.
The school population will rise, and may rise a good deal more quickly than the Secretary of State intends. I say "intends" for two reasons. First, the exclusion of the full-time rising fives from the primary schools is certain to reduce the numbers on the primary school registers. Also her Birmingham decision, and other decisions like it, will certainly reduce the number of working class boys and girls who stay at school after the

statutory minimum leaving age. Despite that, we remain uncertain about all the figures.
In the light of that uncertainty let me ask the right hon. Lady why she has been in such extraordinary haste not only to announce her policy in increasing detail but to implement it before the full picture is available. Her instruction to ATOs last week is the beginning of that implementation. Why, in the light of all the uncertainty, have the Government decided to cut the college of education places next year by the degree and to the point they have? Why have they decided to do that when, if everything goes right and according to plan, the target of 40 and 30 in classes will only just be met for the country as a whole and not met at all for the areas of special and desperate need?
The answer can only be this. The Government do not even aspire to an overall target of a better teacher supply than 40-sized classes in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools, which is the 1945 target at which the Government are still aiming. It is certainly not a target which a Labour Government will aim at, and it is a figure which we hoped would fade into the past by the end of the first Labour Government's lifetime.
Consider again the opportunity which the Government have lost here. The college of education places are there. A simple continuation of the present trend between now and 1981 will produce an extra 54,000 teachers in our schools. Those teachers could provide a national increase of 10 per cent. More important, there would be extra teachers to meet the needs of the deprived areas. There will be extra teachers for the essential small classes to be created for remedial children. There will be the opportunity to meet the needs of the children whose needs are greatest and which are often the last to be met. Once again we have to come to the gloomy conclusion that the Secretary of State, for whomsoever she speaks, does not speak for them.
What shall we hear from the Secretary of State? I think we shall hear two things. Before I suggest what they are, let me beg her not to repeat that tired old debating point which she produced at Blackpool 10 days ago about 400 teachers unemployed when she said she hoped she would not hear any more about


that. Those were her words—"I hope I will not hear anything more about teacher unemployment."

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I did not mention 400.

Mr. Hattersley: I have no doubt the right hon. Lady did not make any reference to 400. Had she done so, it would have demonstrated how fatuous her point is. The number of unemployed teachers, which the appropriate unions were able to give, was 400 out of 364,000, and the right hon. Lady makes my point as to why she should not go repeating that hoary old debating point.

Mrs. Thatcher: It did not prevent the unions from writing to me about it last year and expressing their fears about teacher unemployment.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course not. It is the duty of the unions to be concerned about 400 unemployed among their members. The idea that the right hon. Lady can turn up at a meeting of the Association of Education Committees and pretend that teacher unemployment—400 out of 364,000—is remotely related to the question of demand for teachers and supply of teachers I say again is fatuous.
However, I believe that the right hon. Lady will make two points. The first is inherent in the wording of the amendment, and it is the argument we have heard in debate after debate when we have discussed her policy. It is simply this: everything is all right with the right hon. Lady because her policy promises slightly more in 1981 than the Labour Government managed to do in the late 1960s. No one is enormously impressed by a policy whose principal virtue is that there will be slight improvements over a full decade. Certainly, the AEC was not impressed by that argument last week, and I think that all the debates in the various organisations and in the professional Press have demonstrated time after time that a simple arithmetical promise that things will be better in the early 1980s than they were in the late 1960s impresses no one.
I suspect that the right hon. Lady's second point will be a reference to the availability of money. I suppose that she and I have to agree to differ about

growth rates in the education service. I say that reinforced by the knowledge that not only do she and I agree to differ but The Times Educational Supplement, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, Education and virtually every other enlightened view on education matters disagree with her as well.
I reaffirm that the next Labour Government will expect to spend a good deal more of the national product on education than the right hon. Lady chooses to spend. But that is a point of fundamental disagreement between us, and I must put this question to the right hon. Lady. What sort of standard of values is embraced by a Government who are unable or unwilling to provide as many teachers as the nation needs but who are yet determined to press ahead with the Maplin development? What sort of standard of values do a Government have who are prepared to leave London with a crucial teacher shortage and yet would gladly have thrust the motorway box down London's throat?
I suppose that the only answer one can give—it is the answer one comes to over and over again—is that the right hon. Lady's standards and ours are different. We at least rejoice in that.

7.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan for an increase of over 140,000 teachers between 1971 and 1981, to improve staffing standards, and to extend in-service training".
The motion criticises action which I am taking in 1974 which cannot possibly have any effect on staffing in the schools until the year 1977–78. Somehow or other, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatterlsey) manages to support that criticism by criticism of the staffing position in the schools now and next year. In so far as the staffing position in the schools next year or this year is inadequate, the hon. Gentleman is delivering the most cogent attack on the teacher supply policy of his own Government, and the most cogent attack yet delivered on that Government's planning for teacher supply in deciding to raise the school leaving age.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman criticised the operation of the quota and mentioned some of the problems which schools will face this year. This year, the output from teacher training colleges and teacher training graduates will be about 43,000 newly-trained teachers. The teacher quota distributes that fairly round the authorities. That is the output this year, in July 1973. In so far as they are three-year trained teachers, they went in in October 1970, and the size of that intake to the teacher training colleges would have been determined by what was done in July 1969 and must have been a decision of the Labour Government.
Before coming to the motion itself, I should say a word about the teacher quota. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that a large part of his speech was, to put it kindly, only obliquely related to the motion. The teacher quota is not the Department's quota. It is an employers' quota, the local education authorities' quota, which happens to be administered by the Department. It sets out to give a fair geographical distribution round the country of all the newly-trained teachers available.
On 31st January this year we sent out to each local education authority details of the quota. We pointed out that
it is specially important that quotas for 1973–74, when the full force of the increased numbers produced by the raising of the school leaving age will be felt in the schools, should correspond closely with the total supply of quota teachers expected to be available. Authorities are therefore asked to ensure that individual quotas are not avoidably exceeded and that any substantial foreseeable shortfall in recruitment is notified promptly".
It is early days yet for authorities to have reached their quotas. There followed a total list of quotas, and here are some of them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lancashire. Lancashire's quota for this year is 20,916 teachers. Birmingham's is 8,892. Manchester's is 4,682. Newcastle's is 1,639.
There will be many teachers coming out of the teacher training system this year who have not yet got jobs, and there will be a number of areas which are as yet nothing like up to quota because a number of those teachers will probably be applying for places which attract

them most and may subsequently be redistributed. Therefore, in so far as there will be a problem next year. it is early days to say that there will be shortages.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady talks about teachers coming out of colleges this year. It is her Department's policy and that of the authorities to have all the vacancies filled by 1st May, and most of the colleges are now down.

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is not possible to have all the vacancies filled by 1st May, for the simple reason, apart from other things, that some of the teachers will not know whether or not they are qualified until all the results have come out.
The teacher quota is operated in exactly the same way as it has been hitherto. The policy of my Department is to see that those who come out of the teacher training system—the numbers this year will have been determined by the policies of the hon. Gentleman's Government, of which he is so critical—are fairly distributed among the authorities.
The hon. Gentleman has a good deal to say about class sizes. He should know that the former regulation prescribing maximum class sizes of 40 for primary and 30 for secondary was withdrawn by the previous Secretary of State in circular No. 16/69, and no new targets were set in terms of class sizes because it was thought better at that time—and I still think it is better—to have a judgment in terms of pupil teacher ratio.
I come now to the motion, which is about three things: the change in training college places between 1971 and 1981, the intake of students to training places in 1974, and the teaching force needed to meet the educational needs of the next decade. That is the order in which the points are put, but, of course, they are back to front. One begins with educational needs for the next decade, one moves on to the size of the teaching force and the training plant required to meet those needs, and one then makes plans accordingly.
I shall begin, therefore, with the educational needs of the country as they were set out in the framework for expansion in the White Paper last December. So far as they relate to the supply of teachers, they were threefold. First, we set out


to improve the school staffing standard. Second, we set out to provide the qualified teachers needed for a planned expansion of nursery education. Third, we set out to provide the extra teachers needed to allow for the proper induction of new teachers and to allow for improved in-service training.
For all the hon. Gentleman's talk and that of his predecessors, they were not able to achieve either of those last two aims. They are good talkers, but when it comes to performance they cut, as we know only too well.
I admit that this is an ambitious programme. It is ambitious in two quite different ways. It is ambitious, first, because no previous Government have committed themselves to school staffing objectives 10 years ahead. It is ambitious, secondly, because we were not content to specify better staffing in the schools. we went on to set ourselves two new policy targets, which Labour Members had often talked about but had failed to find the resources to provide. We thought it was time to stop talking about giving children an earlier start and giving their teachers a better professional preparation, and to get on and do these things.
The conclusion that we came to was that for these three purposes we should plan to bring about, in addition to the expansion already achieved, a further massive increase of over 140,000 teachers in service by 1981. This is something not to be regretted but to be firmly welcomed as an important new stage in school staffing policy. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that I had not given the full arithmetic of this policy. I shall now go into a very difficult part of my speech and give a good many statistics, which will not necessarily provide the best hearing material but will, I hope, make good reading.
I shall give the very simple arithmetic of the policy, expressing it in terms of full-time teachers. First, to preserve the school staffing standards of 1971 for the numbers and ages of pupils in the schools by 1981, we must make provision to increase the teaching force by about 60,000 to 422,000 teachers. Secondly, to add 10 per cent. more teachers to ensure an improvement in standards we need another 42,000 teachers. Thirdly, to provide two adults for every 13 nursery

children, of whom one would be a qualified teacher, we shall need another 27,000 teachers. Fourthly, to replace the teachers on induction or in-service training we shall need another 22,000. That gives a total of 513,000, which we rounded in the White Paper to 510,000. Later school population projections suggest a figure of 509,000—which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned, so I expect he has seen the paper which has gone out—for which the appropriate rounded figures continues to be 510,000.
A teaching force of this size will mean attaining standards and achieving reforms which would have seemed visionary only a few years ago when teacher supply was still at the mercy of sharply rising pupil numbers and a particularly heavy loss of young women teachers who left to start families of their own. We are therefore committed to providing over 140,000 additional teachers for the maintained schools by 1981. This increase in 10 years will be greater than the increase in the teaching force over the previous 20 years.
Let me spell out the implications in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. The movement of the ratios is a striking indicator of the progress already made and the greater progress now planned for the future. In 1950 the ratio was 27·1 pupils per teacher, falling by 0·3 to 26·8 in 1955; by 1·7 to 25·1 in 1960, a good period for improvement; by 1·6 to 23·5 in 1965, also a good period for improvement; and by 0·8 to 22·7 in 1970. On present projections, and subject to all the obvious uncertainties of forecasting, the subsequent landmarks on the way to the White Paper target for 1981 will be 20·7 in 1975, an improvement of 2·0, the best improvement yet, even though it covers the raising of the school leaving age, and a further 2·0 to 18·7 in 1980. Our plans therefore constitute the biggest improvement in teacher/pupil ratios yet.
Moreover, within this progression there has been qualitative as well as numerical improvement—through the increased recruitment of graduates, the introduction of three-year training in the colleges, and the phasing out of unqualified teachers. This qualitative improvement too will continue at what we hope will be an accelerating pace. These further improvements will be to the direct and immediate benefit of the pupils, in terms both


of smaller classes and a wider range of choices. I know the importance which teachers and parents alike attach to class sizes. There is at present little convincing evidence one way or the other about the effect on educational attainments of class size, but I agree with most informed educational opinion that a further reduction in average class sizes is desirable.
The House will appreciate that these improvements have been brought about despite an increase in the school population in the maintained schools from about 5½ million in 1950 to over 8 million in 1970. To improve the pupil/teacher ratio for such greatly increased school rolls has meant a massive investment of resources in the training system, in calls on the nation's highly educated manpower, and in the bill for teachers' salaries.
Of course, we could have named a higher figure. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook makes about a promise a day, and we have come to expect that. But I notice that, for all that is said in the Opposition motion, neither it nor the Labour Party policy statement has named a larger figure.
Teachers' pay amounts to 70 per cent. of the cost of running the schools. We cannot act as if there were no other demands on the local education service, as though the local authorities had unlimited funds from which to pay for a teaching force of unlimited size. The hon. Member is not slow to press for more improvements in school building, in school equipment and books and needs for special schools, let alone express the demand for higher education and now more adult education. The figures I have given for teacher supply are part of a balanced programme of expansion in almost every sphere and, unlike the hon. Gentleman's figures, they have been specifically defined and costed.
Our policy is to increase further the supply of teachers, and in that process to improve staffing standards, develop nursery education and enhance the professionalism and so the status and prestige of the teachers, which I agree matter tremendously. We have preferred the course of realism. The important thing for us now is to move steadily towards our declared target of 510,000 teachers by

1981, regulating our progress as necessary from year to year.
I turn therefore to consider how many teachers we need to recruit to reach the target of 510,000. There are two sides to the calculation: first, how many and of what kinds will be leaving—we have to provide for their replacement; and secondly, how many and of what kinds need to come in. Let me deal with those who will be leaving the profession—the wastage. This is a big factor in teacher supply, extremely complex and notoriously unpredictable. The rates of wastage vary between teachers of different kinds. They vary between trained and untrained graduates, between bachelors of education and non-graduates, and between men and women in each of these categories, and within each sub-category they vary again according to the age group of the teachers.
Total wastage therefore depends upon the mix and age structure of the teaching force, and it involves complex calculations. There is no reliable basis upon which to predict changes in the specific wastage rates for each age in each category. The White Paper therefore played safe by assuming that wastage rates would remain constant, although recent evidence all suggested a downward trend. We did not carry on that downward trend. We estimate that wastage will remain constant. Allowing for wastage and other factors, we estimate that we would need to work towards some 47,000 recruits from all sources in 1980–81 to achieve our target of a net increase of over 140,000 by 1981. This compares with a total recruitment of about 57,000 in 1973–74.
There are three main sources of recruitment to consider. The first group is the three- and four-year trained teachers from the colleges, the second is the one-year trained graduates, and the third is the re-entrants. I will deal with the last group first, the re-entrants.
There is a large and growing reserve of qualified teachers, mainly women, not at present teaching but who are potential re-entrants at any time. There are probably 250,000 already and there could be 500,000 by the end of the decade. If wastage rates are uncertain, we can look to the recruitment of teachers from this reserve to provide the necessary flexibility. In 1971, for example, local authorities recruited some 14,000 and there is no


doubt that the number could rise substantially.
It would be unreasonable to assume no further increase and it would be unwise to assume too much. For the present, we have taken a modest figure of 16,000 recruits from this source in 1980–81, compared with 14,000 now, an increase which takes into account the fact that the pool will double in size from 250,000 to 500,000. We have taken the figure of 2,000 believing that it could be increased if wastage turned once more against us.
I want to deal now with the new recruits who will constitute the remaining 31,000 or so, coming from post-graduates and three- and four-year training. Bearing in mind that recent surveys have shown that head teachers are calling for more graduate teachers in both primary and secondary schools, we have judged that we should plan for some 16.000 recruits from three- and four-year training and 14,000 from post-graduate training, with about 1.000 from various other sources. On this basis, the proportion of one-year trained graduates in the whole teaching force would increase from about 14 per cent. to about 21 per cent.—a substantial increase—between 1971 and 1981. This is part of the qualitative improvement in the teaching force.
To secure the 14,000 recruits from postgraduate training, after allowing for wastage during and at the end of training, would require the number entering postgraduate training—because there is some wastage—to rise to some 19,000 in 1980 compared with 11,000 in 1972. This is compatible with the general expansion of higher education which the White Paper promised.
To achieve the 16.000 entry to teaching from three- and four-year courses in the colleges of education, after allowing for wastage during and at the end of training and for the time lag between entry to training and entry to teaching, means admitting some 18,000 to such training at the end of the decade. This is a substantial drop from the 1973 figure of 36,000. It is for this reason that the number of initial training places in the colleges of education will need to fall to between 60,000 and 70,000 in 1981.
The route by which the policy target of 510,000 is to be attained is not yet firm

but depends on a number of factors. Some of these, like wastage, are very difficult to predict, and the development of the policy must be flexible enough to accommodate changing trends in either direction. Others, like the balance between different sources of recruitment—the number of graduates, three-year trained teachers and four-year trained teachers—are matters of judgment, and a great variety of judgments is possible.
The route mapped out as a planning basis in the White Paper is an attempt to strike a reasonable balance. The eventual choice will be made by the partners in the education service—the local education authorities and the various branches of the teaching profession.
To advise me on these matters I have established, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers. Professor Armitage, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, is to be chairman. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee will be meeting shortly. I have been asked why in this case I have not waited for the new committee's advice before giving guidance to the area training organisations on the intake of students to training places in 1974.
The reduction from 36,000 to 32,000 in the intake is, of course, a first step towards the figure of 18,000 at the end of the decade. Although the detailed inflows and outflows in 1981 are at this stage a matter of judgment, on any reckoning it is clear that a substantial adjustment in the teacher training rôle of the colleges will be needed, and in fact the colleges are to have new rôles as the teacher training rôle is reduced.
It is necessary to move without delay in the right direction, bearing in mind that the results of any action taken now will not show in teacher supply before the school year 1977–78. That is the length of time at which we have to operate. The reduction I have announced will be large enough to minimise the severity of the rundown in later years but not so large as to prejudice decisions about the future of individual colleges. The colleges needed to know the level of their 1974 recruitment quickly. They needed to get their brochures and their details ready to send out to the schools in readiness for next term.
The subsequent scale and timing of the rundown will depend on further studies and later information and advice. As we move into this important new phase in school staffing standards, we can be much more concerned now about what kinds of teachers offering what subjects and what skills and specialities will best meet the needs of the schools.
An increase in the quantity of teachers and potential teachers available can shift the emphasis to quality. We can be much more selective at the point of entry to the profession and subsequently much more concerned with the questions of teacher deployment in the schools.
I sum up what our policy offers. It means greater advances in the staffing of schools in the next 10 years than in any previous 10 years. The colleges' reduced rôle in teacher training will be complemented by their widening rôle in the higher education programme. All these developments have been planned and costed. Moreover, they have been fitted into a balanced programme of advance on a number of fronts, from nursery provision to higher education. It is, therefore, with confidence that I ask the House to approve the programme and adopt the Government's amendment.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I ask the indulgence and tolerance of the House in making my first speech in this assembly.
My predecessor, Will Griffiths, was a close personal friend of mine whose passing I greatly mourn. Mr. Griffiths had a great personal affection for his native city. He was born and educated within his constituency, and he had an intimate knowledge of its people and their problems, which he made his particular concern. His greatest interest was in the National Health Service. The great group of Manchester hospitals were within his constituency and he made it his own particular concern to be ever vigilant in promoting their interests.
During his period of service to his constituents of the Exchange Division of Manchester, Will Griffiths rejoiced in the sweeping away of thousands of unfit houses because he knew very well of their ill effect on the health of his constituents. During recent years the old residential

parts of the constituency have been almost totally rebuilt. I believe that the task of rebuilding the inner areas of our old cities and towns is one of the most difficult problems of our time. To achieve satisfaction for everyone and to prevent any human unhappiness would seem to me at times to be almost impossible.
Recently some publicity has been given to the problems that arise in new developments. I want to put this into perspective. I know of the misery and heartache caused to families which for generations have lived in almost total decay. My interest has been in Manchester's education service. I rejoice, as did Will Griffiths, that the children in my constituency attend schools very different from those which existed when Mr. Griffiths first entered this House.
I rejoice, as I know Will Griffiths would rejoice, that the children of my constituency now have the opportunity of entering a secondary school with unlimited opportunities. When Mr. Griffiths first entered this House, by and large the children entered the old secondary modern schools that gave them no entry to any form of higher education. Very few entered the city grammar schools, none at all entered the city's direct grant schools. Today the situation is different. Children have the opportunity of entering the city's high schools, and there the opportunity exists for them to make the fullest use of their talents.
Almost all of our primary schools have been rebuilt in recent years. The standard of existing nursery provision in my constituency is such that it equals the standard which the Secretary of State is urging upon other authorities. I rejoice that from the allocation recently made by the Secretary of State another school is to be built within the constituency. Already the city can proudly boast the Cheetham-Crumpsall school, a major new development in educational planning—a community school in which library facilities and sporting facilities such as swimming baths are available for public use as well as the use of the school. These facilities will be repeated in the new development in the Beswick area of Manchester. There is tremendous importance in the type of building in which our boys and girls are educated. I am more than ever convinced of the importance of teachers and equipment and I hope that we are entering a


phase in which we can see a new surge forward in this country with the emphasis moving away from buildings to that of teachers and equipment.
I hope that when the projections are made the difficulties of planning will be considered. I hope that those making the projections will get close to the schools because many of the shortages that exist today in the area of crafts, music, English and modern languages are not recognised.
Within my constituency is the famous Manchester educational precinct. I remember when the city decided in its wisdom to develop 60 acres of land for higher education. In the years that have passed, that area has increased to nearly 300 acres. In the Manchester colleges of education today there are more students than there were in Manchester University in pre-war days. We should make the fullest use of our educational capital equipment to exploit the opportunities in our colleges of education.
I have no statistics to quote. However, I have a burning faith in the ability of this country's teachers, given the opportunity in size and in numbers, to make a magnificent contribution to some of the current social problems. I thank the House for its courteous and tolerant hearing.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I have not had the pleasure of following a maiden speech before, and I say at once that the House will have been impressed by the firm, modest, yet confident way in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) addressed us, and by his manifest sincerity. His ramming home of the fact that teachers matter even more than buildings was a point which I am sure will be accepted by all hon. Members as being one of the most important messages in education.
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman was in something of a hurry to get on with his maiden speech as I understand that his constituency is to disappear in the as yet unknown future. I am sure that the House will agree that, having heard him once, it will want to hear him again.
Obviously I cannot claim any long and close acquaintanceship with Will Griffiths but I did know of his keen interest in health affairs. I served under the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on the Health Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, of which Will Griffiths was a member. We all recognised that he was someone who cared very deeply and passionately about the National Health Service.
We had occasional disagreements on that sub-committee on one or two matters, as the hon. Lady will recollect, but there was no doubt that Will Griffiths was someone who stuck to his view with great passion and was also an agreeable person to work with. We know that the hon. Member for Exchange has a high reputation to live up to, and the signs are that he will certainly do so.
I will not enter into the statistical battle which has just taken place between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It seems that once again my right hon. Friend has managed to rout the hon. Member. I will say that, although the hon. Member departs at the end of these debates with his tail between his legs, he comes back fighting. We give him credit for that. My right hon. Friend mounted what seemed to be a formidable argument, and I shall be surprised if any Labour Member is able to make a dent in what she said.
The hon. Member tried to draw a distinction between the excellent virtue of spending money on teachers and the folly of spending it on things such as Maplin and Concorde. I know that these are controversial schemes and that there are pros and cons. But what he said was symptomatic of something constantly undermining the Labour Party and its approach to these great matters. It is that hon. Members opposite cannot see that all sides of life are equally important.
It is no good having the most marvellous schools and colleges and so on if we say that we will not go ahead with any of the great schemes which may strengthen our economy and provide the opportunities for the people whom these schools and colleges turn out to exercise their talents. I do not believe that the hon. Member is really as committed to


this view as he made out but I am sure that many Labour Members are committed to it by instinct. They will not recognise that in the modern world we need economic success just as much as we need excellent social provision.
I turn to deal more directly with the topic under debate. This is a discussion about resources. For the last two years or so we have seen a tremendous increase in public spending. I do not think any of us would deny that there were good reasons for it. The unemployment level acted as a trigger to greater public spending. I am delighted that this is beginning to blow over and that we are seeing a substantial fall in unemployment. But one cannot for ever live in the world where there are no serious checks on public expenditure. Inevitably, we have to apply some sort of test in terms of financial and human resources. We must be prepared to make comparisons. Of course we all want to spend unlimited amounts of money on education budgets. This applies particularly to those of us who have children. But we cannot go on for ever trying to pretend that there will not be severe constraints in the years to come. It does not make sense—except to the Opposition in their most euphoric and irresponsible mood—to discuss these matters without paying attention to resources.
What we must assess—and this is the spectre at the feast—is the effectiveness of increasing the supply of teachers. My right hon. Friend in her White Paper said
Although there is no conclusive evidence yet on the educational effects of class size, the Government think it right to be guided by the judgment of experienced teachers and educationists that a further reduction in the average size of classes would be justified on both educational and social grounds.
My right hon. Friend was right to say that, and I do not dispute it, but, equally, we cannot look at teacher supply or at class sizes and say "This is the magic ingredient in education. The more teachers we have the more dramatically gill our education results improve."
There is now a body of evidence which makes us think twice about this matter. I wish briefly to refer to one or two of the pieces of evidence which we have to face. The situation was well summarised in an article by Dr. Alan Little and two associates in New Society on 21st October 1971. The article was headed "Do small

classes help a pupil?" That article picks out five different pieces of research which led to a surprising conclusion.
The first piece of research was carried out by Joyce Morris, who found that there was a tendency for the children in larger classes of top infants and juniors to have better reading attainments. She advanced possible explanations of that trend. I do not think anybody regarded her piece of research as of major importance in this respect because there were imponderables.
There was then an interesting piece of research undertaken by Professor Stephen Wiseman, in evidence presented to the Plowden Committee. I was a member of that committee, and I well remember the puzzlement with which we received that evidence. It said something that nobody expected. To summarise the point, which was a complicated exercise, the result was that the larger the class the better the reading ability.
Furthermore, the National Child Development Survey was carried out as a study of a complete cohort of children born in one week in 1958. The results may be summarised as followed. Even taking account of small size, length of schooling, parental interest and occupation, children in larger classes still had higher attainments.
The next piece of evidence was carried out by the Swedish researcher Marklund. He concluded that
… a reduction in class size would not in itself lead to improved attainments …".
Some research was undertaken—and it is set out in the New Society article—by Dr. Little and his colleagues, which amounted to a literacy survey covering all the ILEA junior and junior infant schools. Again the findings were striking. There was an increase in reading attainment with an increase in class size.
The researchers discussed the results in that article and decided that reduction of class size, on the scale currently envisaged, may have little impact on reading. They then said
Our main findings have been that little or no differences exist between the reading standards of children in relatively small classes, compared with those in larger ones, and even when social class, length of education, immigrant status and the educational priority status of the schools are controlled, little difference can be found.


They sum up by saying,
Reduction of class sizes on the scale currently envisaged … may not directly improve pupil performance, in so far as this has been measured by reading skills.… The magnitude of the differences found in the score of children coming from interested and stimulating homes against the scores of children from unstimulating and uninterested homes, surely suggest that the social and psychological factors are of greater immediate significance than the types of reductions in class size envisaged.
I do not think anybody has been able to dismiss this research. When initially we had one piece of research and then another it was possible to say that there must be something a little odd about the explanation, but we were faced with repeated pieces of evidence to show that, contrary to all expectation, there was not a correlation between reduction in class size and rising standards.
What are the conclusions? They are not that we should aim at larger classes as an act of policy—and I would not for a moment argue that, any more than did Plowden. Plowden had this research before it, and said "Despite that research, we want to get class sizes down." Plowden was right to do so, and my right hon. Friend has shown that this is her policy, too. What the research illustrates is that class size alone is not the decisive factor and that there are other educational factors which are just as important.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I realise that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is in difficulty and is speaking at length because there is only one back bencher present in the Chamber on the Government side of the House—which shows that the Conservatives have not very much interest in this subject. However, the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to have only one argument: namely, that the fewer teachers there are the better the education provided. Is that really his argument?

Mr. Raison: I was not arguing that. I said specifically that I was not.
It is not completely out of place in a debate about teacher numbers to refer to a series of very important pieces of research on a crucial aspect of the subject. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) wants me to sit down as soon as possible so that he can make a stiring speech. However, in a debate of this kind an hon. Member can-

not be criticised for introducing a note of respect for the work done by academic researchers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) appears to be a little agitated. I have no doubt that he will have a chance to express his views later. In any event, the Opposition may be philistine and anti-intellectual, but I believe that hon. Members are entitled to raise these important points.
What are the other factors which matter? I believe that they fall into two classes. One category primarily concerns matters not affected by money. Nevertheless they are very important. They have to do with raising the professionalism of teachers. We have a very large number of high quality teachers. But I do not believe that teaching is yet a true profession. Taking the conventional yardsticks, at the moment it is a semi-profession. I believe that it should be one of our first aims to try to convert teaching into an out-and-out thorough-going profession. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to push ahead faster with this than she has done so far. There are certain matters concerned with the Teaching Council where we could bring about a dramatic change.
We should tackle the standing of teachers in a different frame of mind. Perhaps we do not ask enough of our teachers. For example, in my view we do not ask enough of headmasters, because of our peculiar system of tenure. However, that is a favourite hobby horse of mine, and perhaps I had better not become too deeply involved in it at the moment.
We want a greater commitment to the notion of straight academic quality, especially in our comprehensive schools. I have a considerable amount of time for comprehensive schools. But there is a risk in the comprehensive world that the out-and-out egalitarians gradually over the years will to an extent corrupt their teaching standards. Fortunately, most teachers have enough sense to resist this. But it is tempting to say that, because not all children are of academic standard, those who are do not matter and that what we need is some kind of contemporary pop culture. It would be a mistake to allow this mood to go further. However, I will not continue with that,


because it may be outside the scope of this debate.
We have to recognise that there are immense social problems affecting our society and our education system which demand an increasing share of national resources. The hon. Member for Spark-brook spoke about the difficulties which exist in secondary schools in the deprived areas. I am with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. But fundamentally they are not matters of teacher supply. I know that there is a shortage of teachers and a very high turnover. But it is not really the global supply problem which afflicts them. It is the difficult conditions in which they teach and possibly the fact that we have not found ways of making teaching in such schools sufficiently attractive. This is very important, and I should like to see more done to support teachers in these areas.
Going back to resources, I also believe that there are matters outside the education budget which may be capable of doing more for the quality of our education than factors coming directly within the education budget. I have in mind such matters as housing and the overall physical environment which in these areas may be the greatest problem that teachers have to face in their schools.
Government is about allocating resources between one Department and another. Looking back over the past 15 years we can say that the period between 1950 and the middle 1960s was when education was dominant in social policy. It was the subject to which most attention was given and where we had a high rate of expansion. That was right. It is arguable today that in terms of allocating both public and private resources housing needs most support, together with the concatenation of problems in twilight areas, inner cities, and so on. In some ways I believe that we shall do as much to improve the quality of our schooling by increasing the environmental budget as we shall by providing a larger number of teachers. We have to make choices, and the same applies to the social work services and to many other features of this sort where we desperately need more money and where we do not have a bottomless purse. We must make decisions. It is right that we should be pre-

pared to say every now and then "Let's look at this a little more closely."
This is a worthwhile debate, in that it enables us to look at a very important area. It is right that we should have had once again the arguments between the two Front Benches on the figures. It is one that needs rehearsing, particularly as it is generally rehearsed with such satisfaction to our side. But however committed people are to increasing teacher supply—and the pressure should be kept up—I hope that they will not succumb to the belief that it is a kind of panacea, because there are many other things we want to spend money on as well.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: First, I declare an interest. Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) on his maiden speech. He will understand me if I say that I suppose I welcome him with certain mixed feelings, though he would need a very tortuous mind to know just how mixed they are. I was once told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that the ideal constituency to choose was one in which one would spend one's summer holidays. Having spent a short while in the hon. Gentleman's constituency over the past couple of weeks, for diverse reasons, I must admit that I would not choose to spend my summer holiday there, but that is not a criticism of his constituency as such.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties of urban redevelopment. He will pardon me if I say that I found some of the redevelopment there, as in all the cities I visit, unutterably depressing. But Manchester, Exchange has a new voice, and we look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman on this and many other subjects in the future.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) seemed extremely mixed up. I understood him to be arguing that we do do not really need all that many teachers and that small classes are not a very good thing. He produced the research with which we are all familiar, particularly that presented to the Plowden Committee, of which he was a member. If I had been a member of that committee, faced with the research of Professor Wiseman, I should have asked some very hard and


tough questions about the conclusions he had reached.

Mr. Raison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that hard questions were asked about it. The curious thing about the whole area was the way in which we had first one bit of research and then another. The Wiseman research came fairly late on, and then there were successive pieces of research which, contrary to all expectations and common sense, produced the answer that I have described. There is an accumulation of evidence—not just one bit of maverick research but a solid body.

Mr. Pardoe: I have spent the greater part of my working life in market research, and I have long since discovered that, whenever the figures show anything interesting, one can bet one's bottom dollar they are wrong. I believe that that is true of the research we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was extraordinary. He says that the Plowden Committee was presented with all that research but that he will discount it because he still believes that we need more teachers, and that it is a very good thing that the Government are going for more. It is a mixed-up argument. I believe that we must discount that research, because all of us who have been involved in education or education policy in any way know that the most essential factor in the whole of education is the interaction between the teacher and, preferably, a small group of pupils. That is what education is about. It is not about how many primary schools or how many secondary schools we build.
The Secretary of State made a very confident—I almost say strident—defence of her White Paper and her policy. She was right to point out that the present situation is inadequate and that to a large extent it is the fault of the Labour Government. But does she think that the present situation, put forward a few years, will be any more adequate then? After all, in the White Paper the Government take credit for the fact that only 2·5 per cent. of all primary school classes now number about 40. I do not believe that that is a very good standard. It is certainly not one that I wish to aim at.
The right hon. Lady said that it was an ambitious programme because no Gov-

ernment had ever set a target for staffing 10 years ahead. It depends on what the target is before one can say whether it is ambitious. After all, it is not very ambitious to say that over the next 10 years I wish to climb a molehill, but that is what the White Paper is doing in relation to teacher recruitment.
What is the Government's target for the pupil/teacher ratio? The right hon. Lady told us what the Government hope to get to by 1980, but what is the Government's target for the size of classes? Will they tell us, without muddying the waters by referring always to the pupil/teacher ratio?
In my view, the number of teachers required to bring all classes in both secondary and primary schools to below 30 is the number for which we must be aiming. If we cannot do it by 1981, let us take it to 1985, but let us state, and unite in stating, what we see the essential target at which to aim. Even under the present situation there are many secondary school classes of more than 30.
I propose to put some questions to the right hon. Lady, because she has defended her case with a large number of statistics and has obviously considered some of the intricate questions involved. When we are considering how to increase the total number of teachers in schools, it is, as the right hon. Lady said, a complex question, and we have to consider a large array of factors.
How many of those who qualify join the profession? Is the figure going up, or is it going down? The right hon. Lady says that there is a downward trend in wastage. For how long has it been going down? I ask that because it has had its ups and downs even in recent years. How long do teachers stay in the profession, and how many leave after four or five years? That is particularly relevant to the problem of the wastage of female teachers.
What are the reasons for the downward trend of wastage? When that is considered in relation to male teachers, it must be related to the prospects in jobs which are seen as alternative jobs for those who are four or five years out—which is the crucial time—of training college. If one considers the state of the economy and compares salaries in those jobs which are seen as direct alternatives


to the teaching profession, one realises that there is no great ground for optimism for the future.
Because of the way in which the economy has sagged over the last three years one can see why there was a temporary downward trend in wastage, but I should like to bet that that downward trend will continue during the present boom conditions. I think it unlikely that that will happen because, even under the Government's pay freeze, salaries are racing ahead in jobs which are direct alternatives to teaching for people four or five years out from college.
There are two factors to consider in the wastage of female teachers. First, there is the pressure to have a second income in the home, which is the old problem of recruitment of women back into industry of all sorts. The economic pressures here are great, for a variety of reasons and there is no reason to suppose that they will not stay as great as they are now.
Secondly, there is the factor which is similar to that for men, namely, the prospects in those jobs which are seen as alternatives. I shall not go through the list of jobs which are obvious alternatives to re-entering the teaching profession for a married woman. Clearly, a great factor is how much time a married woman can spend with her family and, therefore, how easily the alternative job fits into her married life.
One has only to look at the pages of The Times to see the enormous increases that have taken place in, for instance, top secretarial salaries. When one realises that there are organisations offering temporary secretarial posts—and very comfortable ones—at £1·15 per hour, one realises that it would be a brave man or women who would forecast that the downward trend in wastage among female teachers will increase. I guess that fewer women teachers will be coming back to teaching. In my view, the right hon. Lady's figure in the White Paper is optimistic.
The right hon. Lady based her case primarily on the fact that there are many other claims on resources. I am not going into the whole question of resources and the Government's budget, although there is obviously the argument whether

education is to get more or housing is to get more of the resources, but this is not the time to debate that. Within the totality of the education budget the right hon. Lady, of course, has to make her priorities, and today, as indeed on other occasions, she has said that she believes she is giving adequate priority to teacher recruitment vis-à-vis the rest of the education budget. I do not happen to believe that this is so. I believe that teacher recruitment is of enormous importance and could be greater, and is certainly far more important than sheer statistics make out.
It really is time, is it not, that we started to consider teacher recruitment in terms of quality? How one assesses the quality of teachers, how one assesses whether it is going up or down, is as difficult as assessing the productivity of teachers, but the Government and all those interested in education have to make some attempt at it. It is a very difficult thing for anybody to say, but I would guess that the rewards for teaching, which are not very high vis-à-vis the alternative occupations, must inevitably mean that, unless we increase the rewards very substantially, teacher quality in the future will decline.

Mr. Raison: I wonder whether the hon. Member can say whether the small percentage of teachers who would not go to college, because one is not expanding the programme as fast as the Opposition claim they would expand it, would be likely to be teachers of the higher or the lower quality?

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) took 20 minutes of the time of this House in what is a very short debate. It is not for me to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how to run the business of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am not proposing to do that, but it would be helpful if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Lady knows full well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Pardoe: I certainly do not wish to take up any more time. I was just drawing my remarks to an end, and I should have finished had I not been interrupted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, but


he has raised a point which I can quickly deal with. I do not think it is possible to say that those who are on the margin, those who would not go to teacher training colleges or other places because of the current rewards, would necessarily make bad teachers. There are, I am quite convinced, outside the teaching profession a large number of people who would make excellent teachers, and the important thing is to get them in. Therefore, I do not accept the argument behind the hon. Member's question.
I would say to the right hon. Lady, finally, that all the figures she has given us this evening to back up her case look, in the way she presented them, effective from the Government's point of view, but I would remind her that on teacher recruitment and teacher wastage every Government have always got it wrong because we have tried to forecast the unforecastable. I would simply remind her—although it was not particularly her Department which did it nevertheless, it has responsibility in education—that in the latest case of forecasting matters relating to teachers, the forecast of the amount required by the teachers' superannuation fund to ensure the whole question of the rate of contribution of future entrants has proved catastrophically wrong, as the Government Actuary's report has shown. It has proved wrong partly because the figures relating to teacher recruitment have had to be changed in the light of experience. I only emphasise that it is a great pity that the right hon. Lady does not now admit that she got it wrong the first time and that she does not reduce the teacher's contribution from 6·75 per cent. to 6 per cent., which would materially improve the financial rewards for entering the profession.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Since this is a short debate, I will make a short speech, in the hope that I will have the indulgence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said about the quality of teachers. It is just as important as quantity. In the last generation the squire, the schoolmaster and the parson were the three great people

of the village. There is a great difference today in the teacher's prestige.
Too little account is taken in the House of the difference between the teacher of the village and the teacher of the town. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made an interesting and comprehensive speech on this. Recruitment of teachers and the maintenance of their position depend on prestige. We do not pretend that teachers' pay can compete with that of temporary secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that teaching was a profession. It is much more a vocation. The Minister should consider whether we are doing enough to improve the amenities available to schoolteachers.
A schoolmaster in my constituency who lives in a village is anxious to maintain his home there. He put up for planning permission to build a house in the village and it was turned down by the local authority as unnecessary. Had he been a cowman, the Minister of Agriculture would have supported his application. In a matter of planning permission, the village schoolmaster is not as important as the cowman, it seems.

Mr. Pardoe: Mr. Pardoeindicated assent

Mr. Costain: I have the support for once of the Liberal Party.
Could not my right hon. Friend's Department give priority to housing these essential people who carry out the services of her Department? The man I am speaking of was interested not in salary but in living in the village community and getting to know the parents and the children in their homes. He had no priority for planning permission to build a house in the old school grounds, despite the fact that both the village and the school favoured the idea. It cannot be right that a person with a vocation is not given priority.
The housing situation for teachers is the same throughout the country. We cannot expect people to have a vocation without being given the facilities to carry it out. This is done for the manses of parsons, for instance, and it should be done for the teaching profession.
An uncle of mine who was headmaster of a well-known public school complained that he had to retire at 65. Should the


retirement age for headmasters be the same as for other people? With the present shortage of teachers, should not the retirement question be given greater consideration?
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East seems to be getting restless. I am sure that she has a contribution to make, so I will end by asking my right hon. Friend to give special consideration to this aspect of teachers' welfare.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Terry Davis: I will not follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in his description of his relative's problems. I recognise that teachers have a problem in finding accommodation. I know that teachers coming to my constituency have great difficulty in being able to afford to buy a house. Redditch Development Corporation is willing to provide houses to rent at Redditch in my constituency for teachers willing to teach there. Houses can be provided but that is not much use if a town cannot get the teachers.
Apart from a general objection to the Secretary of State's policy of reducing the number of people who will enter the teaching profession, I have a specific objection. The right hon. Lady's decision to cut the September intake into colleges of education by 10 per cent. is totally arbitrary. It affects bad areas and better areas equally. It makes no distinction between areas which have the worst pupil/teacher ratios and those which have the best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that there were regional variations in the national ratio of pupils to teachers, but he will recognise that there are also variations within regions. I was interested to discover in looking at the statistics that one of the worst ratios in the country is that of my own county of Worcestershire. The figures for 1972 show that the national ratio of pupils to teachers in primary schools was 25·9:1, but in Worcestershire it was 27·9:1. The county ranked fifty-sixth out of 58 counties in England and Wales.
Again, the national ratio of pupils to teachers in secondary schools was 17·7:1, but in Worcestershire there is no compensation for the fact that we have one of

the worst primary school ratios. On the contrary, we have the worst ratio for secondary schools, at 19·1: 1. Worcestershire is the worst county in the whole of England and Wales.
It is true that between 1971 and 1972 under the present Government there was an improvement, but the improvement in Worcestershire was less than that in the national average, so our county was falling behind in comparison with the rest of the country. As my right hon. Friend said, these figures are averages, and it is also true that the ratios within counties tend to be worse in urban, suburban and semi-urban areas than in rural areas, the reason being, as will be understood by hon. Members, that rural schools are so much smaller.
The Secretary of State said that the yardstick of class sizes was abandoned four years ago in favour in pupil/teacher ratio, but class size is what parents can see. It is the size of the class for their own children that matters to parents. My 9-year-old daughter sits in a class of 34, and my 7-year-old son is even more disadvantaged in that he is in a class of 40. These are not exceptional conditions: these are typical classes in Worcestershire.
As I listened to the right hon. Lady's recital of statistics it seemed to me that she had not asked the basic question. She has not taken the basic decision. At no time did she tell us what the size of class should be or what the ratio of pupils to teachers should be. She produced a lot of statistics for the past and some estimates for the future, but she did not tell us what her aim should be. She did not tell us what is the right size of class or the right or best ratio of pupils to teachers.
I feel that the right hon. Lady missed the whole point of the debate The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that her standards are not high enough. She is satisfied with a national average of 18·7: 1 in 1980, but we are not satisfied. The most important statistic was completely omitted from the right hon. Lady's catalogue of statistics. She told us what the ratio was in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965 and 1970, and she told us what the ratio will be in 1975 and 1980, but I did not hear her tell us what the ratio would have been in 1980 is she had not taken the decision to reduce


the intake of people who go into colleges of education with the intention of becoming teachers. That is the most important statistic of all.
My hon. Friends are being somewhat unfair to the Secretary of State, however, because she is not the only person who is satisfied with this trend and with her figures. I am sorry to say that some local education authorities are satisfied with this situation. Worcestershire County Council is among them. Only recently Worcestershire County Council has stopped, with effect from next September, a special scheme which has operated in Worcestershire to provide grants for mature students who would like to become teachers but lack the qualifications to enter colleges of education.
I referred earlier to the situation in Redditch. This is particularly appropriate because it was at the Redditch College of Further Education that we had a special course, running since 1965, for mature students. These are mainly married women who wish to become teachers but lack the qualifications. During the last few years 75 students received grants from the county council, and, of those 75, over 50 have become teachers or are at colleges of education or universities with the intention of becoming teachers eventually.
Now the Worcestershire County Council has suddenly stopped any awards for mature students who would like to become teachers but lack the 0-levels or other qualifications.
If a married woman decides to become a teacher in Redditch and goes to Red-ditch College of Further Education, when she is qualified she will not move to another part of the country. She will stay in Redditch to teach, in a developing and expanding town which needs new teachers.
These married women will not have housing problems—any more than they have at present. The additional income might help them to afford the high rents of the development corporation houses or help them to buy their own homes. But they are being thwarted in their desire to serve the community by becoming teachers as a direct result of the county council's decision last October.
Although I condemn the Secretary of State's decision, I also condemn the local education authority of Worcestershire.

9.2 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: The greatest tribute which can be paid to the Government's plans for teacher supply was unwittingly paid by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley). I thought he showed a conspicuous lack of moral fervour and indignation when moving the Opposition motion. I suspect that in his heart of heart he knows that his case is rather weak.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook and other hon. Members of the Opposition about their dissatisfaction with the standards which the Government have set themselves in the period to 1981. But when hon. Members speak in that way I recall the period when they were in office. It was then that we had an opportunity to see what their achievements were. We heard from the hon. Gentleman that in 1965, and again in 1968, they talked about the standards of teacher supply that they wanted for 1981. It is interesting to note, however, that in the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the improvement in pupil/teacher ratios over the five-yearly periods it so happened that the least improvement coincided with the period of the Labour Government. That is the measure for me. Words are all very well, but we want to see action.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Is the hon. Lady aware that during the period of the Labour Government, for the first time in our history, we expanded teacher training colleges to an extent never previously known, and that we spent more on education, for the first time, than on defence?

Miss Fookes: I also seem to recall that that was the period when school building was cut back and when the raising of the school leaving age was postponed. That had been brought in by a Conservative Minister and postponed by a Labour Government. Again, there was a contrast between action and words.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's strategy. It is realistic and it makes worthwhile improvements in teacher supply. I am particularly happy about the teachers who are to be set aside for nursery education. That is something which I have long advocated. That will be one of the real


improvements in our education system in recent years.
I am also happy that provision is being made for the in-service training of teachers during the induction year. We probably lose more teachers because of an unpleasant probationary year of teaching than through any other cause. It can be a horrible and frightening experience to be thrown in at the deep end. Any way in which we can help teachers during the time when they are at their most vulnerable is worth while.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been cautious and has not taken the downward trend of wastage as the norm in her calculations. Because of the unpredictability which has already been mentioned, my right hon. Friend has adopted a sound and sensible course. I think that she may be erring a little too much on the side of pessimism but I do not quarrel with that.
I suspect that the increasing trend, which is observable in all walks of life, for women to return to full-time or part-time work after a period away when they have their families and when their families are small will mean in future years that there will be a far greater number of women returning to teaching. I notice that my right hon. Friend has made allowance for only a small increase of approximately 2,000 over the present return rate.
By restricting recruitment to some extent we shall have people going into teaching who are keen to teach and will be less likely to drop out either during training or afterwards than is the case at present. That slight restriction will have a positive merit. One of the matters which concern many of those who are interested in education is that the expansion of the teacher force over the last decade or more has meant that more attention has been paid to quantity than quality. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is seeking in all manner of ways to pay more attention to quality.
The initial requirements for people going into training should be raised and far more attention should be given to their training and the weeding out of those who prove to be unsuitable. I can recall a college of education lecturer some time ago saying to me privately that when she was a lecturer—she had

just retired—she had hardly dared to fail anybody, however unsuitable he was, because of the immense impetus of getting more teachers into the school somehow. It is wise that we should be turning our attention to the quality of entrants and how they are trained. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give more and more attention to that aspect.
I believe that the Government's targets are reasonable and sensible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be flexible in making any alternations which prove to be necessary as time goes by.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: In the 1950s the British Medical Association made a forecast of the future needs of doctors in Britain. That forecast was proved so wrong that we are still suffering from it. We have returned to that position with teacher supply. I think that the Secretary of State will be so wrong that we shall suffer for the next 20 years as a result of her follies.
We cannot afford such a mistake. The right hon. Lady has suggested that she will be flexible and that she can make adjustments. I suggest that some of the guesswork to which we have been listening will not be readily remedied. Once we cut down on the number of students going to colleges of education and the staffs in those colleges it will take some years to remedy the situation.
I take issue with the right hon. Lady and with some hon. Members who have been using the tables of pupil/teacher ratios. The right hon. Lady contradicted herself when she suggested that it was due to the Labour Government that the figures were low in the mid-1960s. Those figures had been planned for in the period of a Conservative Government. The pickup occurred when the Labour Government policy started to take effect, and at a time when we were introducing the three-year degree and students were staying on longer at colleges of education.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not suggest that we ought to abandon the concept of class sizes of 40 by the 1980s. I have children who have gone through primary school in class sizes of 40. I admit that this was during the period of the Labour Government, but the right hon. Lady has no better target


for the 1980s than to abandon such a concept—

Mrs. Thatcher: The problem is this. There can be extra teachers—large numbers of them—going into the schools, but it does not show in a reduction of class size. I have no control over how headmasters deploy their teachers. I have an illustration in front of me. Over a period of four years the pupil/teacher ratio fell, which means there were more teachers in the schools compared with the numbers of pupils, but this did not show in the size of teaching groups. The head teachers in this case decided to deploy the teachers among remedial pupils, counselling and so on.

Mr. Roderick: I would not disagree with what the Secretary of State says, that we need so much more resources to deal with remedial education and matters like that. Nevertheless, if classes over 40 have remained it is still to be deplored because we cannot have proper education in classes of that size. How can a teacher teach children to read when she has 40 children under her control?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree.

Mr. Roderick: The right hon. Lady must agree. We must deal adequately with remedial work in the schools and reduce the numbers in the classes. Even though she has only indirect control, she has control of teachers overall. She admits it in the White Paper. She will have to have a massive increase in numbers if she is to have any effect whatsoever on this problem.
I should like to refer to that little bit of nonsense in paragraph 49 of the White Paper, and I should like to ask who takes the decisions which are about to be carried out. Are they people whose children and who themselves went through the State machine or did they go through the independent school schemes? Are they people who live in the poorer areas and suffered the worst educational facilities? I suggest that they have had the advantages of schooling in the better areas.
Paragraph 49 of the White Paper states:
The pupil:teacher ratio is now in more common use and provides a simpler and more reliable indicator of current standards and a better index of progress in improving them.

But it does not allow for changes in the age distribution of the school population. For example, an increase, within a given total school population, in the proportion of older pupils with their more favourable staffing ratio would necessitate an improvement in the overall ratio merely to retain the same standards.
Have these trends not been with us over the past years? Have children not been staying longer and getting to the sixth forms? Have we not just been standing still? Under the policy enunciated in this White Paper we shall do nothing but stand still.
My accusation against the Secretary of State is that she is not trying to make progress. She is trying to stand still. With the spread of comprehensive education, I hope that pupils will stay on longer at school, thus requiring better staffing ratios. We cannot afford to suffer staff shortages in the schools. Does the Secretary of State really appreciate what it means for teachers, whose numbers are already short, to see their free periods whittled away when one of their number is away from school? We ought to make allowances for this sort of thing. This is what creates the disaffection among teachers. These things must be allowed for, but the right hon. Lady is not making adequate provision.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Every time I listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my heart sinks lower. If I had to write a report on him, I should say "Full of promise, but achieves little". Referring to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he seems to come out with a promise a day. All I can say is that if a promise a day keeps Roy away from the Department of Education and Science, there will be no tears shed on this side of the House.
Despite the criticisms which pour forth from the Opposition in every education debate, my right hon. Friend has done an excellent job as Secretary of State for Education and Science. What I find so difficult to understand is that, although Labour right hon. and hon. Members make all these criticisms now, in opposition, when they had the chance to do something for education they did very little. [Interruption.] I hear the hon.
Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) make a muttered comment. If he spoke to anyone connected with education, particularly to Socialists connected with education, he would soon learn that they were deeply disappointed with the record of his party when in power.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), in a burst of praise, told us that under a Labour Government this country had for the first time in its history spent more on education than on defence. It is true that they cut defence spending enormously—

Mrs. Renée Short: Not enough.

Mr. Montgomery: —so that it was not difficult to show that education was taking more of the gross national product than was defence. I gather that the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) thinks that they did not cut defence spending sufficiently. Nevertheless the cuts were made, and in such circumstances it is easy to show an increase in spending in one sector in comparison with another sector where a substantial cut has been made. There is no force in that argument, and the truth is that it is the present Conservative Government who are pushing forward with expansion in education.
It is not without significance that the figures for the reduction in class sizes given by my right hon. Friend—I return here to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes)—show that the worst period of all was 1965–70. What this Government are planning to do is to have a teaching force by 1981 of about 510,000. In 1961 we had a teaching force of 276,000, so that that will be a substantial increase.
Moreover, the Government have made and are making substantial improvements in the education service, and these will require more teachers. We have an enormous expansion in nursery education, we have the raising of the school leaving age, which was neglected by the Labour Government, and we have an expansion of in-service training and improved induction arrangements for new teachers. All these will require extra teachers.
It is estimated that for those sectors we shall require additional numbers as follows: 110,000 extra teachers to deal with pupils over the age of five, an extra 25,000 to cope with the expansion in nursery education, and about an extra 20,000 for the expansion in in-service training.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands his own Government's plans if he thinks that 20,000 teachers are needed, for example, to deal with in-service training. The 20,000 is all that the Government are prepared to allow in the equation. In fact, the demand for in-service training will make an infinitely greater call than that.

Mr. Montgomery: We recognise, of course, that the demand will be greater, but at least this is a start, a step in the right direction. It has been long overdue in the teaching profession. I wish that in the days when I began to teach I could have had some of the advantages which will accrue for new recruits to the profession today.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: It was a Tory Government, no doubt.

Mr. Montgomery: No, when I began to teach it was a Labour Government, and a very bad one at that.
If my arithmetic is correct, we shall require about an extra 150,000 teachers over the 10 years from 1971 to 1981 to bring us to a teaching force of 510,000, and to achieve that increase will mean that approximately 15,000 new teachers should be coming into training each year. However, already in the first two years of this period there have been about 40,000 new teachers, which is far in excess of the planned rate of growth, and to have continued at that rate would have entailed a pre-empting of resources.
It is therefore important to underline that the Opposition tonight are trying to make a piece of cheap political capital. It is not that the Government are trying to cut back on the teaching force—far from it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown that we are increasing the teaching force enormously. We are merely reducing the rate of increase in the force, and that is an entirely different matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will overwhelmingly reject the


hypocritical motion moved by the Opposition.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I always wonder why the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) should be on the Conservative Benches, because he comes from the North-East of England and was a teacher.
The Secretary of State made disparaging remarks about her predecessor. She accused the Labour Government of talking and not acting. Perhaps I may give her one statistic which indicates that the Labour Government did act, and for the good of the teacher education service. I understand that in 1964 11,597 men entered training colleges and that by 1970 this had increased to 16,531. For women the figures were about 23,000 in 1964 increasing by 1970 to 36,824. Surely that is indicative of the Labour Government's success in acting and doing something about education. It is very much to their credit.
I can guarantee a brief speech always provided that there are no old Etonian and garrulous interventions. I am sorry, too, that there are no representatives from the Welsh Office on the Treasury Bench tonight. I hope that the Government have got their figures right. If the Secretary of State's crystal ball is faulty, thousands of youngsters will suffer, and, indirectly, so will our economy. There is a good case for saying that the quality and number of the nation's teaching force is as vital to the prosperity of the country as is the machine tool trade. I suspect that in planning for 510,000 teachers in 1981 the Government are being complacent and over-sanguine, because all the actuaries and statisticians have disgraced themselves in these last decades in their estimates of population growth in the same silly way, I suppose, as the recently defeated Liberal psephologist in the Manchester, Exchange by-election.
If the Government are being so bone-headed about this they should take out immediate insurance in the form of better salaries and conditions of service for teachers generally, better London allowances for teachers and the speeding up of modernisation and replacement of slum schools. If these requirements are not met, the alarming exodus from the classroom by young teachers in the big cities

will accelerate into something like mass migration. Practical matters like these are never fully seized by Whitehall slide-rule and computer-mad experts.
On a wider sphere the Government need to pay more attention to house prices and their current reckless inflation than they do to clearing house reports. Teacher supply in the big cities is directly related to housing prospects for those teachers, and the Secretary of State should urge the LEAs to be more imaginative in their efforts to help young teachers find reasonably priced accommodation.
I know that the Government want to reduce pupil/teacher ratios, but it is deplorable that they will not make a policy target of a maximum class size of 30 pupils. This is tragic. In no way is it useful to quote today's pupil/teacher ratio of 22·6.
The truth is that the local education authorities fiddle this figure. With Whitehall's connivance they juggle and rearrange. I wish the Secretary of State would take charge of the policy and try to intervene more actively. Sadly, the kids most in need of help are often those who would benefit by the Government going pell-mell for a maximum class size of 30. The debate is about that issue. An overcrowded classroom is undoubtedly a brake on a child's intellectual and social development.
It would be better for the Government to over-estimate rather than underestimate the requirement of teachers. The great reports of Plowden and Newsom demonstrated that the overwhelming priority for working class children from deprived homes was for them to be treated as individuals in the classroom. If that is the case, I say that teachers should have manageable classes to be able to provide compensatory treatment for those children who often find good conditions only in the classroom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it is sad to compare what is available to youngsters in fee-paying schools with the miserable and often squalid lot of youngsters from the down-town areas of our big cities. It is unjust, a national disgrace.
The policy advocated by the Secretary of State will not guarantee a better deal for the working-class child. One of the


conclusions that I draw is that we must persuade the bourgeoisie to throw in their lot with the workers in matters educational—that is, to abolish the private sector and to seek to accelerate the improvement of the State sector by sustained, organised and vocal pressure on Whitehall and the local education authorities.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The one figure that the right hon. Lady did not use was the 40,000 places she is cutting out of the colleges of education. I am sorry she did not make that plain, because what she is doing means that the colleges will be disrupted, together with the morale of the teachers and of those who may well have their courses disrupted. All this will have its effect on the teaching profession.
The right hon. Lady said that we must put the needs of education first and then see how we could meet them. I agree that that is the right way to do it. We cannot spend all we would like, so we must seek a meaningful compromise. But when I said on 4th April that the demands for teachers and schools would be the same, irrespective of White Papers, the Under-Secretary of State could not deny it. His predecessor in May last year could not give me the projections of teacher supply after 1976, explaining:
I cannot usefully make longer term projections until major issues which my right hon. Friend is now reviewing concerning the rate and direction of development of the educational system have been resolved.
That was before the White Paper. In the previous paragraph, he had said:
These projections will be revised in the light of latest information on these and other matters in preparation for the next Public Expenditure White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 290.]
It is clear that the Secretary of State has not done what she said today must be done. She has not asked herself the question "What teachers do we need and how do we get them?" She has instead done what was hinted at in that reply of 22nd May 1972 and has asked "What is the minimum we can decently spend on colleges of education?".
I understand that the National Union of Teachers said that the number of teachers required by 1981 was not 510,000 but 584,000, or another 74,000

teachers. I am also told that its calculations show that this would mean that the pupil/teacher ratio would be 17:1. Can the Under-Secretary say whether he broadly agrees with those figures and, if so, what is wrong with the pupil/teacher ratio of 17:1?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) was right when he said that the right hon. Lady had not given her figures for a reasonable balance between what the country can afford and what education demands. I challenge her to say that 17:1 is not a reasonable compromise. If we had left the colleges of education alone and she had not cut 40,000 places, we might have got to about that figure. That seems right, and that is why I support the motion.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: We have had a good debate on the Labour side of the House. I thought that the speeches on the Tory side improved as the debate went on. I was particularly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) because they drew attention to the difficulty of obtaining the right teachers in the right places as a result of the difficulties experienced by young teachers in affording houses in the areas in which they wished to work.
As a London Member I echo those sentiments with vigour, not only because I am a London Member but also because I am a parent of children going through the London education system. If that system breaks down as the result of failure to act on the part of the Secretary of State, I for one as a parent in the London area will make sure that she does not forget it in a hurry.
The House had the pleasant experience of listening to my hon. and newfound Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton). He is a new boy to us but in listening to his speech I think we all came to the conclusion that his was a voice which had been matured by long years of educational administrative experience. We realise that he has made a distinguished contribution to education in Manchester and we look forward to the distinguished contribution he will be making on the


national stage. He will, I known, enrich our future debates on education.
The House has been debating the divergence of teacher supply. The Government are aiming to provide 510,000 teachers by 1981 and many of the Government's critics outside the House, including the National Union of Teachers, feel that 580,000 might be a more appropriate target. Mr. Morris of Manchester University, with a very minor alteration of some of the variables in the equation, thinks that 594,000 could in certain circumstances be a more appropriate target. In my experience, professions normally try to restrict entry to their ranks for the simple reason that this tends to provide a great deal of extra employment for their members and strengthens their hand in bargaining for salary improvements.
When a profession such as the teaching profession and an organisation such as the NUT argue that there ought to be a greater increase in the numbers entering the profession than that for which the right hon. Lady is making provision, we ought to take serious note. The Government seem determined to stick by the figure of 510,000 in the White Paper. The right hon. Lady gave us a great number of statistics in an attempt to convince us that she was aiming at the right target. Those statistics were not really of much help to people outside the House in trying to check her projections.
For example, the right hon. Lady said she was aiming to produce a figure of 14,000 graduate teachers by 1981. What people would like to know is not that the overall target includes 14,000 graduates but how the right hon. Lady plucks this figure out of the air and puts it into her calculations. On that matter the right hon. Lady gave us no explanation whatever.
Only last week the Government announced their reductions for colleges of education for September 1974. Instead of 36,000 entrants into the colleges, the figure has been cut to 32,000, a reduction of 11 per cent. That 11 per cent. is applicable only if the 36,000 figure proves to be correct. It may be that the colleges were aiming at a figure of nearly 38,000, in which case the cut would be even greater.
Even more interesting is the fact that the cuts which are to take effect in Sep-

tember 1974 were announced on 23rd June. Then, on 4th July this year, the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers is to meet for the first time. The advisory committee will meet on that date with the major decisions of teacher projections having been taken in the White Paper and with the most immediate cuts having already been decided. Talk about taking one's harp to a party and not being asked to play: it simply does not come into the picture! My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange is twice blessed. He has been able to take part in this debate and he will be fortunate enough to be present for the meeting of the advisory committee on 4th July. He will certainly be able to ask why he had to bring his harp all the way from Manchester to that party, and he may ask what he should do with it. I wish I were there to see what happens.
While we are on the subject of colleges of education, I wish to remind the House that in the debate on 19th February I said that the colleges deserved well of the nation and therefore they are certainly worth one undertaking from the Government. Despite the cuts of at least 11 per cent. which are being imposed on the colleges in September 1974, I hope that the Government will undertake that there will be no redundancies among college staff for the academic year 1974–75. If there is a surplus, it can easily be used to plan the curricula in terms of the higher education diversification which they will be undertaking, to retrain their teachers and to plan for the future. We should like an undertaking to this effect from the Under-Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has defended her forward projection—I emphasise that the word is in the singular rather than in the plural—with a vigour that is worthy of a better cause, but I believe that her figures will prove to be wrong. It is in the nature of forward projections of this sort about manpower requirements that they will be wrong. They are not designed to he right. They are designed to form a reference point as one moves forward. The right hon. Lady seems to have nailed her colours to the mast of 510,000.
Surely the most sensible thing for the right hon. Lady to do is to put forward her projections and then wait to see what happens in the future. The Government


will probably be wrong about graduates from polytechnics and universities who want to become teachers. The Government will probably be wrong about wastage in the teaching profession. They will also probably be wrong about the numbers who require in-service training. Demand from the profession is likely to be much greater since many will wish to catch up on the lost opportunities of the past. How the Government can nail their figures to a mast of 510,000 when they have a diploma of higher education—a diploma which has not yet been agreed in firm terms—to fit into the machine, I do not know.
Then we come to the important question of how many married women will return to the teaching profession. Here again the Government are likely to be wrong. Indeed, the Govrenment themselves think that they will be wrong because, having in the December 1972 White Paper produced a figure in respect of married women who will return to teaching and having based their calculations on that figure, they then set up a study to find out how many married women are likely to return to teaching. It reminds me of what happened at a crucial stage in my career when I worked with a research officer who used to come to me and say "If you tell me the answer you want, I will provide the figures to prove it." For a time we worked successfully on that basis, butt I was never very happy with it. As the years went by and I came to this House, I have gradually come to see that the Department of Education and Science was being run on exactly the same basis.
There are a number of other problems in regard to married women who wish to return to teaching. One would expect the Government to hope for an increase in their numbers since they are cheap, in that they need no more training because they have already had their teaching training. New entrants to the profession must undergo the full three to four years' training before they are available. Therefore, by comparison the married women teachers are cheap.
Many of our young people in training at colleges and universities have a sense of vocation which leads them to go to teach in the city centres where social

conditions are difficult. But married women re-entrants often still have a number of family commitments and tend to live in the suburbs. So their contribution to teaching comes in the suburbs where they live and not necessarily where they are most in demand.
Another point which has not been mentioned is that there will be a decline in the opportunities for young women in higher education. Only 40 per cent. of young women appropriately qualified go to universities compared with 60 per cent. of young men. The balance of young women go into the colleges of education. That is the route to higher education which has been selected for them. That is not a happy situation. As a nation we must move to a situation in which young women go into any form of higher education as easily as young men. But that will take time.
What will happen in the meantime is that the opportunities for higher education traditionally provided by colleges of education will be gradually whittled away by the right hon. Lady, so that there will be less opportunity for young women to enter higher education than they have been able to look forward to in the past.
It is in the nature of forward planning to be wrong. It is only a guideline. It is a different way of arguing a different philosophy from the one which might otherwise be expected. If we are wrong, with the British education system, whole groups of children will miss opportunities for ever because under our system there is no opportunity of readily turning back the clock.
Let us remember that a 1 per cent. reduction in the supply of teachers or a 1 per cent. error in the calculation may lead by the end of the decade to a plus or minus of approximately 5,000 teachers. It will be a very substantial number, given the tight ratios for which the right hon. Lady is aiming. The right hon. Lady is likely to say that she is entitled to aim for the middle point. But it is much easier to achieve a cutback if she finds that there are more teachers coming forward than it is possible to provide a stimulation to demand quickly if she finds that she is going too low.
A daring thought occurs to me. At the very worst, if the right hon. Lady finds a surplus of teachers she can


improve the quality of the teaching service, of the teacher ratio and of the class size.
A great deal of experience on all these vague items in the equation about which the right hon. Lady talks—wastage, graduates from polytechnics and married women returners—is available in the education world from the National Union of Teachers, the Association of Headmasters, the Association of Education Committees and so on. The right hon. Lady should produce a variable range of projections and in close consultation with members of the profession, all the time adjusting her projections.
The only other way in which the right hon. Lady can make her projections right is by forcing teachers and children to conform to the machine that she is setting up. That is not the way to treat children or, for that matter, teachers. If the right hon. Lady adopts that line and sacrifices have to be made, it will not be the machine which makes them but it will be the teachers and the children. The Opposition know just where those sacrifices will be made. They will not be made in the lush pastures inhabited by the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends. They will be made in the decaying inner zones of our cities and in the socially deprived areas. It is for that reason that we shall divide the House.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John Stevas): I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) on a most distinguished maiden speech, which was fully in accordance with the already very important contribution he has made to education. Like other hon. Members, I hope we shall hear him many times in the House. I only regret that the vagaries of the electoral law will compel him, unlike Charles II, to go on his travels again. I would merely say that 1649 was, after all, followed by 1660.
In replying briefly to the debate, I do not wish to make in the same detail the case for the Government which was deployed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She did it with her customary lucidity and cogency, and completely answered the point we have heard from time to time that insufficient statistics have been made available by the

Department. Her speech tonight, taken in conjunction with the document which has been issued to the advisory committee, gives a full statistical background to the Government's conclusions on teacher supply.
I wish to single out three of the themes which have dominated our short debate and have informed not only those arguments but Government policy as set out in the White Paper and elsewhere. They are the themes of expansion, quality and balance. All three are needed for a successful education programme; if any one is missing, the policy is vitiated from the start.
I shall deal with expansion first. There can be no argument but that we shall have a massive expansion in the number of teachers. The figure is beyond dispute: 140,000 more teachers by 1981.
Of course, the estimates must be subject to subsequent events. We shall have a big expansion, but every figure given in a projection over a period up to a year such as 1981 must, in the nature of things, be provisional. It must be subject to revisions upwards or downwards depending on events. But the estimates are very much more than the guesses which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) tried to dismiss them as. They are the best estimates on the information now available as to needs in the future. The increase of 140.000 is needed, first, to maintain and improve the staff/student ratio in our schools, and that it will do.
Perhaps the most significant statistic that emerged from the debate was that in the period 1965–70. which was roughly the period of responsibility of the Opposition, the teacher/student ratio fell by only 0·8 from 23·5 to 22·7, whereas in the White Paper plan—

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my figures—

Mr. Marks: What about the number of children?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Between 1970 and 1975 the teacher/pupil ratio will go down from 22·7 to 20·7. [Interruption] I have made it clear that these are provisional figures. From 1975 to 1980 the ratio


will fall from 20·7 to 18·7. Those figures represent a rate of reduction nearly three times as great as that which was achieved by the previous Government. [Interruption.] Of course it is a forecast, because it refers to the future.
A number of hon. Members have suggested that the debate might have been more usefully conducted in terms of class size rather than aggregate numbers or the ratio of teachers to pupils but, as my right hon. Friend said, it was the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) who withdrew the class size criterion in favour of the pupil/teacher ratio.
The reason is simply that it is no longer appropriate to define staffing standards in those terms when schools are, in practice, organising their work differently with team teaching and flexible teaching methods in which individual and small group work have a place as well as class teaching, and so on.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to cast doubts on the White Paper's estimate that the planned employment of 510,000 teachers in 1981 would reduce the pupil/teacher ratio to a lowest-ever figure of 18·5 to one. The hon. Gentleman would have made it 19·3 to one, apparently on the extraordinary ground that those teachers who would be benefiting from the new provision for teacher induction and in-service training should not count. Why should they not count? Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that a teacher does not count except when he is standing in front of a class? Does the hon. Gentleman wish to disparage that part of a teacher's time that is spent in his own further development and enrichment in his pupils' interests? As a quibble, that is thoroughly worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
The second point is the expansion of nursery education, one of the most important reforms in education this century, for which we shall need 27,000 more teachers. The third constituent of the figure is the 22,000 teachers who will be needed to implement the proposals for in-service training.
There have been expressions of concern about the colleges of education. The number of places for teacher training will be reduced, but the colleges will still

play an extended rôle in our higher education system and discussions are proceeding on that basis now.
The second major theme of the debate has been quality. it has been commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) and by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). We wish to improve the status of the profession—I agree on that one point with the hon. Member for Sparkbrook—but how does one do that? Does one do it by pious platitudes and the encomia which is all that the hon. Gentleman can offer, or does one do it by doing something for the training of teachers?
The profession will not be helped by producing thousands of teachers whom local education authorities cannot afford to employ. But it will be helped by improving the quality of teachers, by improving in-service training, by moving towards an all-graduate profession, and by putting into operation proposals for the Diploma of Higher Education and related degrees in education which will give us the most highly qualified teachers in the world.
The third theme of the debate is balance. It is easy to ignore other aims of the educational system in favour of whatever happens to be in the public eye for the moment. That is the policy that has consistently been followed by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My right hon. Friend and I and the Government who are responsible for that educational system cannot do that. We have carefully to weigh and cost the needs of the system, and it is that careful weighing and costing which characterises the White Paper and makes it largely a realistic policy declaration in contrast with the uncosted fantasies of the official Labour Party policy and the even more way-out Green Paper on policy for education.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes left in which to reply.
Whatever the costing proposals put forward by the Labour Party in the course of the debate, it has been extremely difficult to find out exactly what is the Opposition's policy on teacher supply because, apart from an irrelevant reference to the independent schools, where


the Opposition are willing to wound but still afraid to strike, there has been no firm commitment by the Labour Party on its policy on teacher supply.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about 54,000 more teachers, but we do not know whether that is a firm policy commitment. What we can do, however, is to set that proposal, vague as it is, against a background of wild promises and commitments that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mildly referred to it as the resources problem, and it was given a rather more astringent reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery).
It is true that hardly a week has passed without our having had some new and costly proposal from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We have had two in the debate tonight. We have had one referring to the general number of teachers; we have had another referring to in-service training. In the debate on 15th May I gave some costings of the proposals for 1981 which had been put forward by the hon. Member and his colleagues. I estimated that they would cost £1,700 million over and above the expenditure we already project in the White Paper. Since then we have had a call for higher education to be made more expensive and for discretionary grants to be abolished. That would cost, I estimated last month, an extra £1,000 million. Possibly the proposals we have had put forward tonight would add several hundred millions of pounds to the education budget. The only item of extra expense which we have not yet had from the hon. Member for Spark-brook is compulsory grants for pre-retirement courses in adult education. No doubt we shall have that in due course.
If the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has got himself into such an exposed

position, it is because he has consistently ignored the dictum of a former great member of the Labour Party, Aneurin Bevan, who said that the language of priorities was the religion of Socialism. If this be so, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook is one of the great Labour heretics of our age. If he spent more time on sorting out his priorities and less in fighting his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) over the Green Paper, it would be an improvement for the cause of education in Britain. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition Chief Whip is glaring at me: I am not a member of his party.

Therefore, the choice facing the House tonight is a simple one, between the policies on teacher supply outlined in the White Paper, which are thought out, which have been worked out and which have been integrated with other proposals so as to make a coherent whole, and a hotch-potch of vague and contradictory statements, designed to snatch at every passing educational fashion, and any fad or fancy that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks will bring in an immediate short-term vote.

My right hon. Friend has just completed the longest unbroken term of office of any Tory Education Minister since the war. She has celebrated it by winning the educational argument tonight, just as she has won it every time she has clashed with the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We shall continue our celebrations in the Lobby by carrying the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 264.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biffen, John
Bryan, Sir Paul

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony

Atkins, Humphrey
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bullus, Sir Eric

Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Batstord, Brian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cary, Sir Robert

Bell, Ronald
Bray, Ronald
Channon, Paul

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chapman, Sydney



Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred

Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy

Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Coombs, Derek
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmond, Robert

Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian

Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Anthony

Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dixon, Piers
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas

Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)

Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Shersby, Michael

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Skeet, T. H. H.

Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sorel, Harold

Farr, John
Luce, R. N.
Speed, Keith

Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spence, John

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John

Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John

Fox, Marcus
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.

Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter

Green, Alan
Money, Ernie
Tugendhat, Christopher

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Gummer, J. Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Dame Joan

Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper
Waddington, David

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles
Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis

Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wells, John (Maidstone)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
White, Roger (Gravesend)

Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Whitelaw. Rt. Hn. William

Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry

Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John
Wilkinson, John

Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas

Hay, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Wood. Rt. Hn. Richard

Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil
Worsley, Marcus

Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Younger, Hn. George

Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Walter Clegg.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael

Allen, Scholefield
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian

Ashley, Jack
Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce

Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.

Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Milne, Edward

Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Barnes, Michael
Gourley, Harry
Molloy, William

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland

Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King

Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon

Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric

Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Hatton, F.
O'Malley, Brian

Bottomley, Rt. Hr. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oram, Bert

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley

Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Padley, Walter

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.

Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pardoe, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie

Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greyville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John

Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, William (Rugby)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur

Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles

Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Conlan. Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey

Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n & R'dnor)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose Paul B.



Kelley, Richard



Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted

Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville

Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lester, Miss Joan
Sitters, James

Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis

Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William

Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie

Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.

Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Steel, David

Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Dunnett, Jack
Machin, George
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

Edelman, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas

English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ewing, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootie)
Tinn, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tope, Graham

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsden, F.
Varley, Eric G.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wainwright, Edwin






Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Wallace, George
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert

Watkins, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. James Hamilton and

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. John Golding.


Question accordingly agreed to.


Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.


Resolved,


"That this House welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan for an increase of over 140,000 teachers between 1971 and 1981, to improve staffing standards, and to extend in-service training.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Order of the Day relating to the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [Lords]

Consideration of a Lords amendment to a Commons amendment and Lords reason for disagreeing to certain Commons amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services to move his first motion, I must call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved both in the Lords amendment to the Commons amendment and in the Lords disagreement to the other two Commons amendments.
May I also suggest to the House that as all three of the right hon. Gentleman's motions are interconnected they should be debated together. The Question on each motion must, of course, be put separately, and that will be done at the end of the debate.
I now call the right hon. Gentleman to move his first motion.

Clause 4

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE

The Lords had agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: In page 4, line 7, leave out from 'and' to second 'for' in line 8 and insert
'it is hereby declared that the power conferred by section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1952 to provide for the making and recovery of charges includes power to provide for the making and recovery of charges'.

with the following amendment—

In line 4, leave out 'includes' and insert 'does not include'.

10.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment.
The Lords have disagreed to the following amendments made by the Commons:
In Schedule 4, page 63, line 13, at end insert—
'22A. At the end of section 38(3) of that Act (which relates to charges for pharmaceutical services) there shall be inserted the words"; and it is hereby declared that regulations under this subsection may include provision in respect of charges for the supply of such substances and appliances as are mentioned in section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973
In page 69, line 37, at end insert—
'(2) In section 1(2)(c) of that Act (which provides that no charge is to be made under that section for the supply of an appliance for a young person) after the word "appliance", there shall be inserted the words", otherwise than in pursuance of section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."'
for the following reason: because disagreement to them is consequential on the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7.
In respect of these two amendments I shall be moving, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a question of privilege arises and the House will wish to bear that in mind. The effect of making the Lords amendment and of not making the Commons amendments with which the Lords disagree would be to remove the power to charge for contraceptive substances and appliances from the Bill. It would thus reverse the decision of the House, reflected in our amendments to the Bill, that family planning supplies should be treated as other drugs and appliances under the National Health Service—namely, subject to prescription charges. Under the Bill as amended family planning services would become a normal part of the National Health Service and subject to the normal charges and the normal exemptions.
That decision was reached by this House after full discussion in Committee and on Report after consideration of revised Government proposals, which, as


the House will recall, went a great deal further than we envisaged when the Bill was first introduced in another place.
We have, in the light of the Lords message, reviewed our decision. However, we remain of the view that it was right and that the proposals in the message from the Lords are open to strong objection. I shall lay before the House the argument against the Lords amendments.
First, they would involve additional expenditure. The sum involved of £3 million is not astronomical but it is not insignificant. There are many other priorities. Even when the general cause is good we cannot adopt every matter irrespective of what it might achieve and irrespective of its cost.
Secondly, the Lords amendments would create a serious anomaly between drugs and appliances prescribed for contraceptive purposes and all other drugs and appliances prescribed under the National Health Service. It is true that vaccinations and general public health services are usually free but preventive drugs and medicines are not as such free under the National Health Service. Drugs subject to normal prescription charges include medicines which are intended to prevent conditions developing or recurring as well as those intended to cure and relieve.
I turn now to the crucial issue. The arguments which I have already mentioned against the Lords amendments might not prevail in our minds if it were the case that to eliminate the 20p charge would serve the purpose which we all share. Of course, all extremes of argument on both sides of the House wish to reduce unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies, and abortions. That is common ground. The House generally agrees with the moves that the Government have already made which will expand the tax-borne cost of advice and supplies for the next few years from the £1 million a year which we found on taking office to about £30 million. That will be likely to reduce but not eliminate unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies and abortions.
The question is whether the 20p charge will stand in the way of a still larger reduction. That is the crux of the argument to which hon. Members must address their minds tonight. Those in

the Lords urging a totally free service assume that the charge will stand in the way of a greater reduction. I believe that that is a delusion and that the facts are much more complex. First, there will be group exemption. There will be automatic exemption for those on supplementary benefit, those on family income supplement and those who have had a baby in the previous year.
Secondly, we shall encourage the Health Education Council and the new area health board authorities to give much increased publicity to the services which will be available under the National Health Service. Much of the increased take-up in the free zones stems from increased publicity. Those who take the trouble to go to clinics will not be deterred by the 20p charge—20p at most once a month for a few months while a woman and her medical adviser are seeking the contraceptive supply most clinically apt for her, and thereafter 20p two or three times a year. Those who are or can be motivated to avoid pregnancy will use the service if we put supplies on prescription at 20p. The 20p will make no difference to those who are or who can be motivated to avoid pregnancy.
Those who ate not so motivated—and these are the people most in our minds—who are casual or are overwhelmed will not use the service even if it is free. It will not be the 20p which will deter them. This second group, the casual and the overwhelmed, cannot be reached by free supplies but only by domiciliary persuasion. That we intend to increase sharply. There is no question whatsoever of charging the casual and the overwhelmed for domiciliary supplies. We intend to make administrative arrangements for waiving charges in such cases.
These arrangements will have to be used tactfully but will cover all the existing domiciliary cases and those who are so defined in future or are felt by the professional workers used by area health authorities to be in need of this sort of help. There will also be powers to widen the provision for exemption by amending regulations if this proves desirable or practicable.

Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Gentleman is indicating these new administrative arrangements. In view of


the large number of people who at present and in the past have had domiciliary visits and have been transferred to clinics, is he suggesting that the people who will be going to the clinics, having been so directed or encouraged from domiciliary visits, will have to pay a prescription charge—yea or nay?

Sir K. Joseph: Nay, while they are still considered to be in need of the service which I have described in shorthand as domiciliary. That is, by sustained persuasion. Once they are considered to be self-motivating, they will not need to be treated any differently from anybody else. [Laughter.] I beg to the House not to dispose of this argument. While the professional workers concerned judge that such people need persuasion, whether by domiciliary visit or in the clinic, they will be exempted as they are now.
We have considered whether there is any alternative proposal that we should recommend in the place of the Lords amendment. A possible variant which has been suggested, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) of free supplies in particular areas is open to equal or greater objection. It is surely wrong in a national service that a person's ability to obtain free supplies should depend on the past decisions of a local authority which has ceased to carry responsibility for the service. I must emphasise that what we are discussing is not a requirement to make particular charges but a power to do so by regulation. The power is flexible, as shown in Clause 55(4).

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Did my right hon. Friend suggest that the social workers in the clinics will have to carry out a means test of motivation as well as a cash need?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that there is at the moment a domiciliary service which normally involves totally free supplies. That domiciliary service is needed only by a very small proportion of the population. The individuals are identified by co-operation between a number of social services—some probation officers, health visitors, midwives, social workers, district nurses and clinic nurses. This is happening now in different parts of the country. It is the Government's intention that it

should spread throughout the country to those people who are considered to need the encouragement and who are not self-motivating. Therefore, my answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes".
I was pointing out that the power under the Bill is flexible. This power enables us to provide, if necessary, for exceptions to be made in particular cases or classes of case. If, therefore, further experience should show that our present proposals should be looked at again, the power is already in the Bill to modify these proposals. Indeed, there would be power by regulation to abolish charges for contraceptive supplies if this turned out to be the right social priority and if evidence showed that our judgment was wrong. The Lords amendment which the other House ask us to agree gives no such flexibility.
I return to the heart of the issue. The Bill provides that contraceptive supplies should be treated like any other medical supplies on prescription, with automatic exemption for those on supplementary benefit or on family income supplement, or who have had a baby in the previous year.
It would just not be understood by large numbers of the public if we went further than that. I say with full deliberation that there is no case for going further. Totally free supplies will not, just because they are free, reach the casual and the overwhelmed. We intend to reach them by much-expanded domiciliary services offering supplies which will be free in their case. It is the Government's view that the right thing to do is to stand by the judgment which this House has made.
I shall, with permission, seek an opportunity to answer any new points which are made by hon. Members.

Mr. John Silkin: When the subject of family planning was discussed on previous occasions in the House or in Standing Committee, the debates were wide-ranging. We had to consider en bloc a number of amendments, including the question whether there should be a family planning service at all. For my part, I have always regarded this latter question as a matter of moral decision which hon. Members must make in their own way, and for that reason I recommended to my right hon. and hon. Friends


a free vote on our side. I still regret that the Government did not follow that example.
Tonight, however, the House has only one question to consider—whether family planning, which will now be on the National Health Service in any event, should be provided free or by prescription and therefore subject to prescription charges. In my view, there arc three major reasons why the Government ought to have thought again about their opposition to the Lords amendment.
First, I do not think that the Secretary of State has fully taken into account the attitude of general practitioners. When we were in Committee, negotiations had started with the general practitioners to obtain their view of a GP-based service. As I understand it, the negotiations still continue. But if I interpret the views of the British Medical Association correctly, they are that the question of family planning should not be regarded as an obligation for the doctor. The BMA regards this as an additional service, and one which should be paid for.
In that event, what happens to the £3 million which the Secretary of State told us he would save if there was not a free service? The right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, no doubt, is far better than mine, but if only half the GPs in the country operate the service and charge £1 a visit, which does not seem to me to be excessive these days, the total cost will be well over three times his £3 million. Perhaps he could check those figures. He has the time.

10.30 p.m.

Secondly, the BMA does not consider that the supply of appliances should be made generally available to men through their family doctor. They should, it thinks, be available only to women, so that the basis is not a comprehensive universal service for family planning. Thirdly, it also takes the view, perfectly understandably, that the doctor should be able to refer a patient to another doctor if his personal views are inimical to family planning. I understand that, but it means that there is a tremendous gap in the comprehensiveness of the service. The three arguments that the BMA has in mind clearly demonstrate that the

service will not be universal, that administratively it will be inefficient, costly and irregular. These irregularities will be constantly open to public criticism, and rightly so.

The second major disagreement that we have is on the question of the prescription charges. We contend that the use of prescription charges for family planning is a totally unjustifiable extension of the prescription charge base. The Secretary of State tried to make the point that it was on common ground with those items that are subject to prescription charge. The House must know that I am against prescription charges of any sort but that I fully accept the reality of the situation that prescription charges will continue during what is left of the lifetime of this Government. [Interruption.] We plan to abolish them. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will just have to wait and see.

Nevertheless, because the reality is that prescription charges are here to stay during the lifetime of this Government my right hon. and hon. Friends and I contend that the levying of prescription charges on family planning appliances is totally out of context with other prescription charges. It is always possible to judge the validity of a rule by its exemptions. Here the exemptions include children under 15, elderly persons over 65 and expectant mothers, which shows that this is not an area which has much common ground with prescription charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has said, common ground exists in the area of preventive medicine, and the Secretary of State did not give that fact due weight. To that extent it can be compared with immunisation, vaccination, X-ray and other such services which remain free.

For these reasons we are grateful for the opportunity to re-examine the problem. Experience has shown that where free family planning services already exist an increasing number of persons is using the facilities. Nor does that offend the general view of the people of this country, as the Secretary of State seemed to think. A National Opinion Poll in December 1972 showed that 64 per cent. of people asked—and the figure was 79 per cent. for men and women under the age of 45—were in favour of free family planning.

The Secretary of State has certainly moved a good deal between February 1971 and today. I now ask him to catch up with the rest of the public because they are in favour of free family planning. Therefore, in giving them such a service we shall not only be in accord with their view but shall be in accord with common sense. For those reasons I call on my hon. and right hon. Friends to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I believe that we ought not to hide from ourselves the enormous steps which have already been taken towards comprehensive family planning arrangements. The real question before us is the specific one of whether we would extend the number of people who would be likely to use family planning if it were a free service rather than if it were on prescription charge. That is the narrow point at issue.
But even in discussing that point, it should not be omitted that the Bill in general has done more in this matter in a very short space of time than has been done at any time before, and my right hon. Friend ought to take proper pride in that fact. But having said that, we have to ask ourselves whether, if we agreed to the Lords amendment, we would reach that group of the population we are all concerned should have the opportunity and, indeed, the encouragement, to use family planning, which it does not do at the moment.
What we really ought to be doing is spending as much money as possible on the domiciliary service and on the monitoring of the service to see whether it should in future be extended or changed. We should not be spending the money on free family planning for two reasons.
First, no evidence has been adduced that even a free service would reach precisely that group of the population which, rightly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and we all wish to reach. All we have had is a general statement which, in effect, is that anything free is likely to reach more people than something which is not free. The question is whether it is not more sensible to spend this money in another direction. I do not believe that a case has been made

out that the £3 million can be usefully spent in providing a free service. There is, indeed, considerable argument that the people believe that it should not be.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to quote a public opinion poll, but I suggest that if a person is asked whether he would prefer something to be free, he will say that he would prefer to have it free. The purpose of this House is to decide not whether it would be eminently desirable to make a whole range of things free, but whether, given the resources, this is the right way to spend them. It is this House which has to make the decision, and no one else, because it is this House's responsibility to decide the way in which we spend the money raised in taxes. In this case, we have to decide whether the money would be better spent on the domiciliary service or some other parts of the National Health Service, or whether we should be more concerned, for no really provable benefit to make the family planning service free.
The second point, which is incontrovertible, is that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this service is not like anything else provided under the NHS does not stand up. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not ask people to pay for life-giving drugs or medicines necessary to keep them alive—although I remind him that the Labour Government reintroduced prescription charges—but most people would agree that it is rather odd to turn round and say that all people should get family planning service free. Surely it is reasonable to say that people should pay for that if they can afford it, just as they do for anything else.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend under the impression that the Secretary of State has offered to spend another £3 million on the domiciliary service? I have not heard any such offer.

Mr. Gummer: I am under the impression that the Secretary of State has stated clearly that if it is necessary to extend the domiciliary service in order to reach the people we wish to reach, he will have, under the Bill, the means whereby, through regulations, that can be done.

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I should point out that estimates that have been given include a great increase in the domiciliary service, including free supplies for that service.

Mr. Gummer: If we are concerned to reach that section of the population pointed out by the right hon. Member for Deptford it does not help to make the service free. It means that we are saying to the people that because it happens to be a trendy thing to do we will do this rather than consider the real issue which is how do we help these people directly. The domiciliary service is a much better way of doing this. if at the end of the first year we find it does not work effectively we ought to extend the domiciliary service rather than make the social services pay for this.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This is a short debate and I do not have time to demolish the arguments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer). If he has time will he please spare an hour and come to my constituency and I will give him all the proof he wants that his argument is a lot of nonsense?
I want to direct the Secretary of State's mind to the possibility, even at the eleventh hour, of accepting some of the extremely important arguments advanced in another place. There is a deal of administrative nonsense involved here. The right hon. Gentleman is creating a NHS reorganisation Bill based on efficiency. Yet in this part of the Bill he has created enormous administrative bureacracy. This £3 million will be lost in it. Another 15 million EC10 forms will have to be printed and distributed. All of the exemptions will have to be checked to make sure that they apply to those who are exempt. All this adds to the weight of work.
The general practitioners and the pharmacists will want more money. The reorganisation of the NHS chemists and the contract chemists will involve more work. There is also the effect of voluntary workers. At the moment there are 1,500 and the right hon. Gentleman hopes for 2,000. People are prepared to volunteer for a good social purpose but are not prepared to volunteer to work as tax collectors. If they have to put 20p stamps on prescription forms or find some way

of getting round it there will be the same problem as we had with the prescription charges.
This makes a nonsense of the GP service and distorts the delivery of care by the imposition of charges. Already condoms will not be supplied by doctors. We are supposed to be going into action by 1st April, but the way in which negotiations are going means that the work load on GPs will vary widely. Some will be on the obstetric list some will be FP doctors, others will not. There will be difficulty in sorting out doctors and patients and there will be competition between doctors in terms of capitation fees.
In health centres and in group practice there will be a need for more ancillary workers and this will cost hard cash. After the present salary negotiations with the Review Body and the SMSC there will be very little cash saving.
Unusually for the right hon. Gentleman this is very narrow and shallow thinking. He has not gone into this in depth, realising the comprehensive nature of his responsibilities to the Health Service. For the sake of a doctrinaire approach on a small matter he is distorting the rest of the Health Service. I remind him that he is responsible for social services as well as health. For every £1 saved in prescription charges he will spend at least £20 on all the other problems that will arise.
This is the first time a charge has been made on the prevention of social problems. Just as he would not think of putting a charge on the work of probation officers, on work for the welfare of the elderly, the provision of geriatric wards, psychiatric social workers, assisting the mental and physically handicapped and the disabled surely for the sake of 20p it is nonsense to erect this huge machinery. The right hon. Gentleman is erecting an unnecessary barrier between the doctor and those who require human understanding.
In my area of Middlesex doctors have panels ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 people, and doctors are to be expected to take on this extra responsibility. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, to cut out this nonsense and to accept the matter as their Lordships have given it to us.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On the Report stage of this Bill in this House some of us made clear our position on the clause which sought to confer these powers to subsidise the use of contraceptive appliances. But, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) pointed out, that is no longer the question before the House. The clause is in the Bill, but the provision applies to unmarried as well as to married people. This must regulate one's attitude to the Lords amendment.
It was my view on the wider issue—as it is my view on the narrower issue—that considerations of money are not responsible for any appreciable part of the proportion of unwarranted or illegitimate pregnancies. I do not believe that lack of money ever stands between people and the contraceptives they want to use. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] It could be argued that old-age pensioners might find it a burdensome expense, but unwanted pregnancies do not characteristically occur among old-age pensioners. Therefore, I think we can discuss that consideration from our minds.
If it be true that the prescription charge of 20p will not come between any person of child-bearing age or child-procreating competence and the acquisition of contraceptives, then the narrower question which is before us tonight, as the Lords have left the Bill, should be decided as a moral issue.
There have been those who have argued that the provision by the State of totally free contraceptives to all who come in for open-handed largesse will have no impact on people's moral attitudes. They are entitled to their view, but I do not accept it—indeed I find it impossible to accept. We cannot make this distinction. If the Lords amendment were passed, many people would consider that the State had given respectability, and even its blessing, to promiscuity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We cannot separate the two things. One cannot make promiscuity easier and at the same time argue that one is not encouraging it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)rose—

Mr. Ronald Bell: This is to be a short debate and I am afraid I cannot give way. I want to be brief. As I was saying, one cannot separate the consequences from the state of mind in which people enter upon courses of conduct. I feel that the House tonight should insist on the Bill as it left this House and reject their Lordships' amendment.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Secretary of State misled the House, and I think that he did so deliberately when he said that the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I ask hon. Members to wait to hear what I am about to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the suggestion of deliberately misleading the House is not parliamentary.

Mrs. Short: Very well. I withdraw the word "deliberately". But the right hon. Gentleman still misled the House when he said that the public outside did not want us to go any further than he was prepared to go. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately ignoring the expressed view of the public in public opinion polls which have been conducted. Before the Lords Amendment was carried in the other place, they showed that something like 64 per cent. of the general public were in favour of a free comprehensive family planning service. Something like 64 per cent. of those Conservatives who were asked also supported it, as well as 70 per cent. of Labour supporters. I believe that something like 62 per cent. of the Liberals who were asked also supported it. So it goes right across the board and shows that a majority of the supporters of all parties support the introduction of a free family planning service.
The right hon. Gentleman also chose to ignore the experience of those local authorities which have introduced completely free family planning services in their areas. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) spoke of the results in Aberdeen, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, quite apart from the results in many of the London boroughs, in Birmingham and in other areas, all of which show a very large increase in the


take-up of family planning advice when the service is given completely free.
I should have thought that that experience would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go just a little further than apparently he is prepared to and to say that the £3 million, which is a very small proportion of the total spent on the National Health Service, would be money well spent. Past experience in a large number of local authority areas shows that if the service is provided, some of those women who are most in need avail themselves of it. After all, it is those women with whom we are concerned. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will think again.
Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman also to think of the consequences of not doing this. These are all arguments which were rehearsed in the various stages of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. But the recent figures which show the cost of keeping a child in care, for example, are very considerable. To keep a child in care now costs almost as much as it does to keep a prisoner in prison—more than £1,000 a year. In 1971, 90,000 children were taken into care. Of those, 5,000 were under two years of age, 600 were abandoned or lost, 3,000 were illegitimate and were taken into care because their mothers were unable to provide for and to cope with them, and a further 25,000 were taken into care because of the incapacity of their parents together or their guardians. This represents an enormous well of misery and unhappiness among women, among mothers who have had children they cannot cope with and, last but not least, among those children.
I ask the House to think of the children who are abandoned at six months, a year, two months or two years and who are thrust into foster homes and into local authority care, with many people looking after them during their developing years. The Secretary of State should be concerned about what happens to those unwanted children when they become adolescents. I will not develop it, but it is a situation for which we should have great regard.
It so happens that most of the methods of contraception which require medical supervision are those used by women. If

men are too lazy, too ignorant or too bloody-minded to take precautions themselves, the onus falls on the women. I put it to the Secretary of State that what he said about people not using the service if it is free is disproved when one looks not only at the local authority situation where this has been done but at the large numbers of working-class women who are not in a position to pay for contraceptives. They cannot afford it. Many women have to operate on a very tight family budget. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that many families do not claim family income supplement. He is concerned about that, and nods agreement. He knows the facts.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Nonsense.

Mrs. Short: One of the right hon. Gentleman's less enlightened hon. Friends says "Nonsense"

Mr. Maddan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is trying to show that there is a great ground swell of opinion, fact or statistics in favour of her case. Would she care to comment on the fact that the amendment in another place was carried by the votes of the life peers, who are very much older than we in this House are—[AN HON. MEMBER: "TOO long".]—

Mrs. Short: Mrs. Shortrose—

Mr. Maddan: The hon. Lady will have to sit down.

Mrs. Short: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be of reasonable length.

Mr. Maddan: My intervention is very reasonable in length, Mr. Speaker. I only wish to ask the hon. Lady whether she would care to comment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.

Mrs. Short: Mrs. Shortrose—

Mr. Maddan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that if an hon. Member gives way he or she will at least allow a point of challenge to be developed. Therefore, I wish to say to the hon. Lady—

Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention is not an opportunity to develop a point. An intervention is to put a short, sharp point, which the hon. Gentleman has not done.

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Maddanrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a short, simple point to put to the hon. Lady, I will let him do it—if it is short and simple.

Mr. Maddan: I will put my short and simple point—[Interruption.]—I will put my short and simple point—[Interruption.]—I will put my short and simple point—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not become any shorter and any simpler if the hon. Gentleman repeats himself three times.

Mr. Maddan: If the House would allow me to make my point, it would be short and simple. I must rely on your protection, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to do that.
My point is simply this: does not the hon. Lady acknowledge that her cause is years out of date, and that the amendment was carried in another place by the life peers, who are all of a different generation from that of hon. Members of this House?

Mrs. Short: The only comment I make about that little interlude is that it persuades me that retrospective legislation has many advantages.
The Secretary of State must be aware that many women are hard pressed and find it difficult to pay for this service, and will not do so if the charge is maintained. Many unmarried women who are working and living on low earnings will also find things difficult. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that this is something that will affect women very much more in future, to reconsider his advice to the House. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who had the courage of their convictions when almost 70 of them signed the motion on the Notice Paper will think of that effect and vote with us in the Lobby tonight.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The last remark of the hon. Lady the

Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) might have been more to the point on the last occasion when we debated this subject if she had had the support of her right hon. and hon. Friends, so perhaps we can draw a veil over that.
My right hon. Friend talked about the extra cost of £3 million. I remind the House that the approximate cost of providing a full free service is between £6 and £7 per head of those using the service. It costs something in excess of £1,000 per annum to keep an unwanted child in care, and about £300 per annum to take a child into a nursery school during the time that the parent is working.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will not make the fashionable assumption, which I have tried to argue against, that a charge will necessarily affect those who have illegitimate children, abortions or unwanted pregnancies. My hon. Friend has that link to establish before he can make the argument that he is trying to put forward.

Mr. Finsberg: I made a similar point last time, and my right hon. Friend did not give me that rejoinder. I was merely pointing out that even if one wants to leave aside ethical, moral and health considerations there is still the cost-benefit consideration that one cannot overlook. That was the only point that I was making. My right hon. Friend has treated the subject with deep sincerity, but I hope he will acknowledge that those who cannot go with him have deep and sincere convictions, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) wondered whether the service reached the right people. I should be delighted to take him to Camden and show him that it does. My hon. Friend does not require to go to Aberdeen to find out.
I gave the House certain statistics on 13th June, and perhaps I may now give some up-to-date ones. In the calendar year 1972, in the London borough of Camden, there were 2,791 requests from general practitioners for family planning supplies. In the first 23 weeks of 1973, there have been 2,257 requests from general practitioners in that area for family planning requisites.
The reason why I ask my right hon. Friend to think again on this is that he was being a little unfair in the argument that he developed when he put this matter to the House tonight. About 10 million people now living in local authority areas are able to get the benefit of fully free family planning services. These have been voted to them by their elected local authority representatives of both parties, and I cannot accept that just because the House is being asked to reorganise the Health Service, and because local authorities are to disappear, that right, which was voted to them by both parties in 33 local authorities, should disappear, too. It is illogical, to me. I have spent 25 years in local government, but this is not how I ever thought the Conservative Party looked at local government. The Labour Party also has had many failures in its attitude to local government. When local government is dealt with by Parliament Members on both sides protest that they like local government, but then they find reasons for saying, "Not on this occasion; it had better fall into the Civil Service plan". To this extent Governments of all parties have failed.
I hoped that my right hon. Friend would have found it possible to say, "I recognise there is deep feeling on this matter". On the last occasion the House considered it there were three votes. One was for a fully free service. I forget for the moment what the second was, but the third was for the service to be retained for all those local authorities which had the service. The House took a decision by an odd majority, because a large number of people were not here. Now we have been given an opportunity by the House of Lords to think again, and we ought to think again.
I am speaking only for myself, not for my hon. Friends, many of whom signed the motion to which the hon. Lady referred, and many of whom voted in the same Lobby as I on that last occasion, but if my right hon. Friend can say, "I understand the position; I will make certain that at least those local authorities which have a fully free service may continue with it when they become part, or parts, of area health authorities next year", then I will not vote against my right hon. Friend tonight.
However, if he is unable to give me that assurance, then I fear that I must vote against him. I will vote in support of the Upper House which on this occasion, as on many other occasions, has shown itself to be more closely in tune with the moral feelings people have and the worries people have.

Mr. Leo Abse: As one heard the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) adumbrate once again his opposition one was aware that that battle was fought on the Family Planning Bill. Hon. Members of all parties realised that they were not then primarily concerned with the conduct of unmarried parents; all were concerned primarily with the children and with the illegitimate.
The Secretary of State, as he began to speak, laid down that it was the view, and, he rightly said, the view of the whole House, that we were all concerned to see if we could reduce the numbers of the illegitimate and the numbers of abortions. Rightly then, as in his intervention, he stressed the error of the simplistic view that the giving of family planning devices and appliances will automatically and necessarily reduce illegitimacy or abortions. He rightly stressed that nobody can make that assumption and rightly criticised those who make, without evidence, that assumption. That is true, but, just as we must not take those simplistic views or attitudes to prove our case, we must expect him, too, not to take such a stand, and I return to what he emphasised when he opened this debate.
The right hon. Gentleman is concerned with reaching out to that section of the population who by their behaviour are helping to perpetuate the cycle of deprivation which he is constantly stressing has in some form got to be broken. He presented the argument that the way to do it is by domiciliary visits. He has unfortunately got himself into the position that, having done more than any Minister since Kenneth Robinson in the way of family planning, he is reacting to pressure. He is in the curious position that although he is spending millions—yea, tens of millions—and has given considerable assistance to many who could well afford to buy their own family planning appliances—he has not reached to


that very area which all of us are concerned about, and that is, those who have to be motivated to family planning if we are to succeed in breaking the cycle of deprivation. He has fallen back entirely on the argument that the only way to reach these people is through domiciliary visits. He knows that there is a vast grey area of people who could and would be reached if the service were free, and who will not be reached unless the service is totally free.
Is it not true that, after all the work that the Minister has done in advertising, only half the families estimated to be eligible for family income supplement are claiming it?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mr. Anse: The Secretary of State agrees with me.
That means either that the remainder were not in touch with the referral agencies, like health visitors or social workers, or that the agencies failed to make it clear to them that they could claim the benefit. Family income supplement carries exemption from prescription charges, but that cannot be any good to those women who are theoretically eligible if they do not receive FIS. If they are not in touch with the referral agencies, they are unlikely to be included in the domiciliary family planning programme. When the right hon. Gentleman stresses the domiciliary programme alone, he is leaving out probably half of those who should be reached.
Although it would be absurd for anyone to be didactic, there is the more suggestive evidence that, since some local authorities have been giving a totally free service, precisely those women who feel the burden and have so little to spare are taking advantage of it. For example, when Lambeth began such a service, 14 per cent. of those who applied were women with three or more children. I find it impossible not to believe that that group had not been deterred, at least in part, by charges for contraception. Apparently the doctors, midwives and health visitors had not referred those women to the Lambeth clinic.
The Secretary of State should not deceive himself: domiciliary visits alone are not enough. The only possible way of reaching these people is by "overkill".
Having gone so far and given so much to people who could afford to pay, we are spending millions in the wrong direction and ignoring the area of greatest need. The right hon. Gentleman is being impaled by his own bureaucrats. He did not think out beforehand the strategy for reaching this area. As the pressures have built up, the Department has responded, but it has not been able to alter its basic strategy so as to help those who, as the Secretary of State's past speeches have demonstrated, need help above everybody.
I hope that the House will vote in such a way as to save us from this bureaucratic attitude—not in any partisan spirit or spirit of condemnation. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who in my judgment should be ashamed that they were not present on the former occasion. They can claim no kudos from that. But the time has now come to talk not in terms of party spirit but in the thought that if we take the wrong decision, perhaps tens of thousands of children will be born who will perpetuate the social problems that we seek to avoid.
I hope that the House will rise to the occasion.

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: When we last debated this subject I voted in support of my right hon. Friend, and I have listened with interest to learn what case the Opposition would present in trying to persuade us to change our minds. With great clarity the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) presented three points: the medical or doctors' objections; the question of the proven existence of the local authority services, and the question of prescription charges. Although, as I say, he presented those points with great clarity the fact is that, first, there are a large number of contradictions in the doctors' attitude. For example, we often hear a lot about the total care of the patient which the local practitioner reserves quite properly to himself. But now we hear from the right lion. Gentleman that this is something they would wish to dispense with.
Then there is the implication that there is something peculiarly special about the administration of these drugs and, in


particular, the drugs referred to rather than any others. We are told that a humane and difficult task has to be performed in six minutes, or whatever the time is, but essentially there is no difference in the prescription of these drugs from that of a dozen others, and these drugs are quite frequently used for purposes other than those of contraception. Many drugs are far more difficult to use than these are. Therefore, again, there is something of a contradiction in the medical objections.
Particularly with regard to male appliances I have a slight suspicion, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I am a little cynical, that doctors like other people in the professions and elsewhere, may be making out a bit of a special case here. They know very well that from time to time there are reviews of their responsibilities and the payment for them, and they are perhaps putting it on a bit. There is nothing easier than to fill in the EC10—putting in the number of the particular contraceptive. It may take six minutes to assess the capabilities of a certain person, but one certainly does not need six or seven years of medical training to decide that sort of thing.
Again, there is enormous substance in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the proven value of existing local government services. These are based on figures, and one hears at once loud cries of "Aberdeen," "Camden" or elsewhere. With regard to figures, there is an enormous difficulty in separating cause and effect. It is very difficult to distinguish the concentration, the drive and the enthusiasm in Aberdeen or Camden from the actual benefits of the free service. In what is called a controlled trial one would have to distinguish in some way the effect of all that generosity and enthusiasm—and perhaps of a particular attitude in some part of the country—from the mere provision of free contraceptives. This has not been proven, and it is very difficult to do that.
I hasten to add that that does not mean that the figures which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) was quoting were necessarily wrong, but it would suggest that they are not necessarily right, and that she may be—as her right hon. Friend

the Member for Deptford may be—drawing more conclusions from those figures than they justify.
Finally, the third argument of the right hon. Gentleman was on the question of prescription charges. I happen to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the values and the ways in which prescription charges should be imposed. There are better ways of dealing with an ever-escalating drug bill than prescription charges. However, by and large, my views have not prevailed. I shall leave that argument aside.
As these prescription charges exist, I shall be asked, as will others, to prescribe on the same basis, digitalis and minovlar. In all conscience, I cannot see how these two can be equated. It would be wrong to exaggerate too much and to refer to one as a fun drug and the other as a lifesaving drug, but the fact is that they are different in both quality and substance. I cannot see, so long as the present situation exists, with prescription charges, that it would be morally right for me to say that those which are inessential shall be free and those which are vital shall be charged for.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Trafford: No. I am trying to be exceedingly brief.

An Hon. Member: We do not want a second opinion.

Dr. Trafford: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I will not give way.
Although I accept the sincerity of the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Deptford, and by some of his hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends, even on those three bases, particularly on the last one, I should be wrong to do other than support my right hon. Friend tonight.

Mr. Eric Ogden: In less time than any of the previous speakers I wish to make three brief points. I am not interfering in the dispute between the two sections of the medical community. Obviously that is represented in the House as it is outside it.
First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin)


reminded the House that we have had a free vote until now. It was right that we should have had that. It is unfortunate that we have had to change that, but a two-line Whip is not that strong.
The Secretary of State will recall the circumstances in Committee that enabled the Government to carry their amendment. I have some responsibility for that, which I am not shirking. But tonight the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the free service would be available to "the casual and the overwhelmed." Other words that he might have used could have been "the irresponsible" and "those who are not responsible for one reason or another."
The right hon. Gentleman has my voting record. It seems that for the sake of this sum of money the right hon. Gentleman is getting into tremendous administrative difficulty. The whole purpose of the argument is that it will not be worth it for what he will save or not save.
If there is a moral reason that a painkilling drug has to be on prescription and paid for and a drug for another purpose should be free, certainly that can be countered by the argument, in the Secretary of State's words, that those who are responsible and accept their responsibilities will have to pay, and those who may be casual or overwhelmed—I would accept the overwhelmed having it free—the casual, in the right hon. Gentleman's terms, through the domiciliary services, are to have the service free. There is complete opposition between the right hon. Gentleman's words and those of his hon. Friends.
Why should the responsible pay when the deliberately irresponsible are getting it free? In those circumstances, however is one to persuade the deliberately irresponsible to accept responsibility? The right hon. Gentleman is getting into tremendous administrative difficulty for no particular reason.

Mr. Anthony Fell: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent at the beginning of the debate when he was speaking.
It would be as presumptuous of me were I not to credit those who believe passionately and with absolute sincerity

that all family planning appliances, and so on, should be free to everyone, as it would be wrong for them not to credit people who believe that what the House of Lords did is wrong and that there should be some brake upon the increase of permissiveness. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred to the morality of this matter. In the last 25 years this country has seen the most extraordinary changes take place. They are changes that many people have helped to bring about—and one respects their views—and which have left thousands, indeed millions, of people in a state of turmoil as to the direction in which the country is heading.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), whom I supported once on such matters, feels passionately about these things. He spoke—and it was a sad thing to say—of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of children who will be born if there are no free contraceptives. He was, I believe, talking about Lambeth, where I live. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman lives in Lambeth; it does not really matter whether he does or not.

Mr. Ogden: What part does the hon. Gentleman live in?

Mr. Fell: By Kennington Cross. Does that help the hon. Gentleman? Come down there any day with me. Parts of Lambeth are crowded with young children, some of them from very poor families. Pick out the children who ought never to have been born. This is what has to be faced by those who have brought in all these aids to permissiveness. Why is it not possible for people to face the facts? Are hon. Members afraid to face them? Are they afraid of admitting that there are people who have moral standards that are different from those of other people?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my hon. Friend abhors abortion as much as I do. Many abortions regrettably take place in this country. Would my hon. Friend not agree that if this sum of £3 million were granted for the provision of free contraceptives and saved but a handful of abortions it would be money well spent?

Mr. Fell: It is difficult for me to answer my hon. Friend. I can see perfectly well what he is getting at, but it is difficult to answer him because I believe, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South that we are taking another step along the road to greater immorality and less regard for the moral values of life. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) may wag his head, but obviously he has permissive views. [Interruption] I apologise if the hon. Gentleman has not got permissive views. There are millions of people in this country who do not hold the permissive views that have been pushed down our throats by Governments ever since the end of the war.
Those people must be heard, and anything that my right hon. Friend does to fight against the growth of the permissive society is a help to at least that part of the nation which has some regard for the moral values of our people.

11.30 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Obviously, there are strong arguments on both sides of this subject, but I wonder whether those who advocating free issue ad lib have considered one practical point. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Navy?"] I was about to say that I had some small practical experience, since, quite rightly, the Navy makes the issue free. The question I put to those who are advocating free issue ad lib is whether, under their scheme, there is anything to prevent a man's going to his doctor seven days a week—[Laughter.] Perhaps not everybody would be virile enough to make use of supplies on such a scale, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), with his medical knowledge.
But, seriously, what is to prevent people taking abroad suitcases full of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delicately calls substances and appliances, and selling them in huge quantities to pay for their very cheerful holidays!

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): I find it difficult to follow that argument. I want to bring the discussion back to a serious level. If I may say so with respect, I do not think that the intervention by the hon. and gallant

Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has helped one iota in resolving the dilemma facing us tonight.
This argument has gone across the Floor on many occasions. The culmination has now been reached by the message from the Lords, and it is up to each of us to decide how we shall vote, according to our own view. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), replying to the Secretary of State, made a telling point. I remember the time during the Labour Government when I found myself in grave difficulty, opposing the imposition of prescription charges. If there was a contradiction for me then, I plead guilty to the same fault now, because, having voted in those days against the Government in their wish to reimpose prescription charges, tonight I am turning tail and saying that I believe that the argument has not been established by my right hon. Friend that we should support the Lords amendment.
In all honesty, I believe that the prescription charge for contraception should be retained, bearing in mind the qualifications laid down by the Secretary of State. If I were asked to choose priorities for the spending of money to mitigate prescription charges, this would be the last on my list.
I feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends should hear from me because on another occasion I made a declaration. I should add that it has caused me vexation since I made it. I have constantly thought about it, and I have come to this conclusion. I took office with the Opposition as a Whip, and that imposed certain responsibilities and discipline upon me. I would find it extremely difficult, even at this point, to disobey that trust which was vested in me. At the same time, I cannot go along with what my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends would wish me to do. I respect their point of view. I have known that they have campaigned for a long time on the issues that are before us tonight.
I ought to tell the House in honesty that I have never been against contraception. If, as was suggested by one hon. Member, the embracing of a free and comprehensive contraception service within the National Health Service would


stop abortions, I would embrace it tomorrow. But we were told this before about abortion. We were told that once it was made possible, the figures would go down. Unfortunately, there has been a reversal.

Mrs. Renée Short: We were never told that.

Mr. Dunn: With respect, I was not addressing my remarks to my hon. Friend. We all know her point of view. Perhaps she will do me the courtesy of listening to mine.

Mrs. Short: Do not misrepresent us.

Mr. Dunn: I would not misrepresent my hon. Friend, because she does not need me to represent or misrepresent her. She is quite capable of dealing with her own subject.
There is a dilemma before us tonight. Many of us believe that the issue is a quite clear and simple one. My right hon. Friend put it this way, and other hon. Friends have understood the dilemma facing many of us on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend says that the abolition of prescription charges for contraception should have priority. I will have none of that, and this evening I do not intend to support either one argument or the other.
Had there been a free vote, there might have been a different cast to the debate. I must say to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that I would have preferred a free vote on this matter, as was done on the first occasion. It might have been to his advantage had that been done. It might have left for me at least—and there might be many others—a difficulty that did not have to be surmounted. Indeed, it is probable that there would have been more sincerity at the end of the day, because on his side of the House on a moral issue the Secretary of State has a three-line Whip which I do not believe should ever be imposed on a question such as this and one of such importance.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The whole House will have felt very deeply with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). What he has said emphasises what this debate tonight has been about as opposed to earlier debates. Tonight's debate is undoubtedly

about the fact that my right hon. Friend has moved 80 per cent—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ninety per cent."]—90 per cent. of the way he has been asked to go by those who will now vote against the Government tonight.
We all know the argument. In essence, if it were true, it is that the cost of 20p means that people get involved in unwanted pregnancies. My goodness, if that were true there would be no unwanted pregnancies among the middle and upper classes. Sad to say, there are.
The practicality, however, is that there are those on this side of the House, and some on the Opposition side, and many outside, whatever the opinion polls say, who would be deeply affronted if this House went any further than it has already made up its mind to go and if it did so merely because a group of what I think are best described as trendy, backstreet—not backwoods—peers have instructed us to do.
Let us say again what we said before, because this House is the master, as Labour Members would have reminded us had their Lordships decided to axe the provision instead of increase it.

Sir K. Joseph: With the leave of the House, I should like to welcome the support of a number of hon. Members, some of whom feel that the Government have already gone too far. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), my hon. Friends the Members for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and Epping (Mr. Tebbit). I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) for his authentic views.
The costs of all the factors in the Government's policy—including the general practitioners' services, free supplies for the domiciliary services, and the administration—have, of course, been included in the estimate given to the House. I assure the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), whose sincerity is not in question, that no bureaucracy is involved in this policy. The clinics already charge. They will act under the National Health Service, and I hope that large numbers of volunteers will continue to serve, but


I can confirm that no extra process will be involved.
The principal issue tonight remains as it did before—between those who believe that the 20p will stand between some women and contraception and those who do not. The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), all in differing degrees, prayed in aid common sense, common experience or the free zones that 32 local authorities are now running. There is no doubt that the free services have attracted large extra demand. That is because in practically all cases they have used a great deal of extra publicity and because, above all, the alternative to going to these clinics is to buy the contraceptives commercially not at 20p, 40p or 60p a year, but at £4, £6 or £8 a year, as is now the commercial charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) rightly said that the local authority free zones are not experiments with proper control arrangements. There is no evidence from them that merely because the supply is free it will reach those who are in all of our minds. The House must bear in mind that we are to provide supplies at 20p for everyone, with free supplies for those who are identified as being without motivation and therefore in need of encouragement. But the maximum anyone would have to pay would be 20p and this seems to me totally to invalidate the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead feels so strongly about—that the local authority free zones are a pattern that we should follow.
The hon. Member for Pontypool argued that there are not just two groups—the motivated and the non-motivated—but a third "grey" group of people who are neither. One of our biggest intentions, however, is so to expand what I call, for shorthand, the domiciliary services that the professional workers involved—through clinics, through hospitals, through those GPs who are willing to co-operate, and through social workers, health visitors, district nurses and the probation service—will identify, so far as is practicable, those who are not motivated, and thus will reach, we hope, not

in every case but in most cases, those who need our help.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), in a brief intervention, asked how we could possibly justify helping with subsidies those who did not need help, and giving supplies at no cost to those who do not ask for help. We do not need to reach out far for justification. To help the non-motivated to protect against pregnancies they do not want is in their interests and is in the public interest and that is why we have every justification for what we are doing.
I turn finally to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) which, had they been valid, would have been formidable. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin dealt effectively with most of them.

11.45 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we were getting into a muddle with the general practitioners—that they had rejected the chance to co-operate in a contraceptive service, and that we would fail because in our plans we had depended on them and they would not be working with us. That would be to misrepresent the position.

Mr. John Silkin: It would be to misrepresent it—but I did not say it.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the general purport of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that I had counted excessively on their co-operation and had under-estimated what their co-operation would cost. In our estimates we have taken into account what we think the cost will be of a general practitioner service. We are discussing with the GPs the pattern they may be willing to fall in with. We have assumed such a charge.
The fact is that large numbers of GPs offer contraceptive advice no one forces them to do so if they do not wish it—to their patients in their surgeries, and that large numbers co-operate voluntarily—though for pay—in family planning clinics. We expect both these habits to continue.
I must ask the House to face reality. Both the House of Lords and those in this House who argue for a free service


are asking the Government to suppose, quite wrongly, that a free service will achieve a larger fall in unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies and abortions than a service on prescription charges. These assumptions are wrong. The casual and the overwhelmed will not use the service whether it is free or at 20p. They will not in any case, be charged. We shall reach to them and seek to persuade them, through clinics and domiciliary services,

to use the service which, for them, will be free. I hope the House will stick to the decision which, on the merits, we have twice reached.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 220.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[11.48 p.m.

Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Lane, David

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.

Astor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian

Atkins, Humphrey
Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fowler, Norman
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson Michael

Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David

Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil

Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mather, Carol

Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray

Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony

Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Bossom, Sir Clive
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman

Braine, Sir Bernard
Green, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Money, Ernie

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie

Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector

Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper

Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David

Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar

Carlisle, Mark
Havers, Sir Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey

Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Nicholls, Sir Harmer

Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John

Chichester-Clark, R.
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley

Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Osborn, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Cohen, Stanley
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil

Cooper, A. E.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian

Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn, John

Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn

Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner

Critchley, Julian
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (W'st'd & W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)

Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick

St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis

Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene

Shaw, Michael (Scth'gh & Whitby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)

Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebbit, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)

Shersby, Michael
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Simeons, Charles
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry

Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Soref, Harold
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Speed, Keith
Tilney, John
Woodnult, Mark

Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus

Sproat, Iain
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George

Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Stokes, John
Waddington, David
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Sutcliffe, John






NOES


Abse, Leo
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maclennan, Robert

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin

Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth

Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Marquand, David

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsden, F.

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr. John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mayhew, Christopher

Bidwell, Sydney
Gourley, Harry
Meacher, Michael

Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian

Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward

Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Bradley, Tom
Hamling, William
Molloy, William

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hatton, F.
Morrison, Charles

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland

Cant, R. B.
Heifer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Carmichael, Nell
Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Ronald King

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hornby, Richard
Oram, Bert

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley

Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter

Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur

Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Coombs, Derek
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pardoe, John

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)

Crawahaw, Richard
Jessel, Toby
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Cunningham, D. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John

Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)

Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probers, Arthur

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Radice, Giles

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Nell
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Deakins, Eric
Lamble, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry
Richard, Ivor

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor)

Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted

Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville

Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

English, Michael
Machin, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Ewing, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Jullus






Sinclair, Sir George
Swain, Thomas
Wallace, George

Skinner, Dennis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Watkins, David

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David

Spearing, Nigel
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Whitehead, Philip

Spriggs, Leslie
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William

Stallard, A. W.
Tope, Graham
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Steel, David
Torney, Tom
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mr. Joseph Harper and

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. John Golding.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

The Lords had disagreed to the following amendment made by the Commons: page 63, line 13, at end insert:

'22A. At the end of section 38(3) of that Act (which relates to charges for pharmaceutical services) there shall be inserted the words "; and it is hereby declared that regulations under this subsection may include provision in respect of charges for the supply of such substances and appliances as are mentioned in section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973"'.

Motion made and Question [Sir K. Joseph], That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, put and agreed to.

The Lords had disagreed to the following amendment made by the Commons: page 69, line 37, at end insert:

(2) In section 1(2)(c) of that Act (which provides that no charge is to be made under that section for the supply of an appliance for a young person), after the word "appliance", there shall be inserted the words", otherwise than in pursuance of section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."'

Motion made and Question [Sir K. Joseph], That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to one of the Commons amendments and for insisting on two other amendments to which the Lords have disagreed: Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. John Golding, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. John Silkin and Mr. Marcus Worsley; Three to be the quorum.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to their amendment to one of the Commons amend-

ments to which the Lords have disagreed reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)

12 midnight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
The order simply amends Regulation 21 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969. It provides that a Member representing a Scottish constituency should receive from the electoral registration officer on request a free copy of the electoral register for his constituency.
A similar provision for England and Wales was debated on 26th February and came into operation on 19th March.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I wish to ask my hon. Friend three brief questions.
It appears that the order makes an unusual use of the powers contained in Section 42 of the principal Act. That relates to the form and procedure of the lists and does not relate to their distribution. Section 171(5) is a mere definition, and Schedule 4 relates to the publication or the provision of these lists in a public place. At a time when so many orders are coming before the House, it is important to discover whether an unusual use is being made of powers. At one time, we had a committee specifically looking at these matters.
Secondly, as the order is to come into operation very soon, can my hon. Friend


say whether it relates to old constituencies or new ones? Whereas it is true that at the next election Members will be fighting on the basis of constituencies different from those which they now represent, many of us now represent people who, if we are successful at the next election, we shall not represent. It is obviously of great help to us to have lists of our existing constituents available. Can my hon. Friend say whether this regulation will relate to our existing constituencies?
Thirdly, the order puts an obligation on the registration officer, on being requested, to supply one copy to the Member of Parliament for each constituency. Does that mean one copy of the register in the duration of a Parliament, or one copy whenever a Member asks for one?
I have raised three detailed points. My main concern, however, is that the order appears to make an unusual use of the powers in Section 42 which relates only to form and procedure. I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend's questions.
On the use of powers, I ask my hon. Friend to refer to Statutory Instrument No. 912 of 1969, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, No. 21 of which contains power, in certain circumstances, for the registration officer to supply copies of registers to people. No new power is being granted to the registration officer. It is just that he can use the power to give copies of the register to Members of Parliament in addition to those to whom he can already give it.
As Regulation No. 21 stands, copies can be supplied to candidates and prospective candidates at parliamentary elections, but those copies, which are used in connection with the election campaign, are usually supplied to the election agent, and the Member himself may or may not receive a copy.
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who drew attention to the matter earlier, and it is as a result of his suggestion to the Government that the regulation has been introduced.

Mr. Edward Taylor: That is exactly the point I was making. My hon. Friend is pointing out that the powers that are being used are in a regulation that was passed by the House under the Act, and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew attention to the unusual use of powers that relate to powers stemming from a regulation that stemmed from an Act. In other words, this is delegated legislation at the second step and not at the first step, which appears to be rather unusual.
As the order refers solely to powers conferred under Sections 42 and 171, and not to powers conferred by a regulation, this would appear to be a very unusual set of circumstances—certainly one that has been deprecated in the House before.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is the first person to raise this point. I should not have thought that it particularly concerns or worries the House. It is very much to the convenience of hon. Members, and I do not see any abuse of the power. Certainly, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not drawn attention to the regulations.
My hon. Friend asked two other more detailed questions. He asked to what constituencies the regulation would apply. It is for the constituencies for which people stand that the copies will be made available; it applies to the existing constituencies. Members will be able to get a copy for each time the register is issued, which is annually.
I believe that the regulation will be helpful to hon. Members. It was much welcomed by hon. Members for England and Wales when the matter was debated earlier. I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that they will find it useful in the exercise of their parliamentary duties.

Mr. Taylor: One final point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made his intervention at some length.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has raised the question whether the instrument has been examined by the Joint Committee on


Statutory Instruments to ascertain whether the Minister is in this case making an unusual use of powers, perhaps I, as Chairman of the Committee, may say that it has been examined by the Committee, which determined not to draw the instrument to the special attention of the House because it is of the opinion that the instrument in no way breaches any of the matters which are within its terms of reference.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

SOUTH AYRSHIRE (EMPLOYMENT)

12.9 a.m.

Mr. James Sillars: As the Minister knows, I first obtained time for an Adjournment debate under the heading "The Effect of the Maxwell Colliery Closures on Dailly", but when major closures were announced in Cumnock late last week I thought the wisest course was to widen the subject and draw to the attention of the Government the problems facing both areas. I should also like to deal with two other areas, Doon Valley and Maybole, just to register them with the Minister, if time permits.
I shall deal first with Dailly, which lies within the Girvan exchange area and which must seek alternative jobs to mining. Those alternative jobs will have to he found at Girvan's Grangestone industrial estate.
For many years Dailly, in common with our mining communities, has lived with the uncertainty and apprehension that comes from a heavy reliance for jobs on a coal industry that has been subject to closure after closure. In Scotland, Dailly has been among the most vulnerable mining communities because of its relative isolation from the major part of the Ayrshire coalfield, which lies 30 miles to the north, and I am sure that

the Minister has been furnished by his Department with a map of South Ayrshire, which proves the point. It has been possible to redeploy men from some smaller pits in the north when closures have affected those areas, with them finding work in Barony and Killoch collieries, but similar solutions are not so easy in the case of Dailly miners.
It was recognition of those and other circumstances, together with the persistently high unemployment around Girvan, that led to the area being designated a special development area. One of the reasons for such designation—a pit closure—has, unhappily, occurred. At the moment the exact numbers of jobs lost is not known to me, and I doubt whether the Minister knows, either, because the National Coal Board and the National Union of Miners are still discussing the matter and no doubt will not be able to finalise arrangements for a few weeks to come.
We know that jobs will be lost, however, and that Dailly's mining hopes will now stand or fall on the performance of Dalquarran colliery, which lies just at end of the village. It is not my intention to throw a question mark over the future of Dalquharran. It is my experience—and I have some experience in this matter—that more pits than many suspect have been talked into closure in recent years, and I am certainly not going to be party to such an exercise in relation to Dalquharran.
However, I should be failing in my responsibilities if I did not point out to the Government that the natural forces that caused the closures at Maxwell are not themselves unknown at Dalquharran. Heating is a phenomenon that has been associated with the pits at Dailly for many years. That is a factor which the Government must take into account when deciding their policy towards the Dailly and Girvan area.
In the lights of events at Maxwell, what we require is an assurance from the NCB that, with the use, if necessary, of money made available by the Coal Industry Act 1973, it will continue to operate Dalquharran while coal reserves last, which should be for a good number of years. From the Government we need an assurance that they recognise that nature might intervene at Dalquharran and that they


are moving positively to establish more male-employing industry in the area as a safeguard to general employment needs.
I previously mentioned the special development area status accorded to the Girvan employment exchange area. This status has been put to good use by the local authorities so far, and every effort has been made to build upon the opportunity offered by that status. Advance factories have been built and filled, and we have to record a recent success in establishing a new tenant on the Grange-stone industrial estate.
Although I have some points of conflict with Girvan Town Council in other directions, a special tribute must be paid to its efforts in attracting new industry. Using the natural attractions of the area, which is one of the most beautiful in Southern Scotland—and I invite the Minister to come and see for himself—and employing a housing strategy that is geared to industry's needs, it has steadily built up the Grangestone estate which is a monument to the fine work done by members and officials of the council, both past and present. They have managed to do that against a background of difficult economic problems.
Whilst the Girvan Town Council takes justified pride in its achievements it will, I am certain, be the first to admit that the present level of development at Grangestone does not meet the employment needs of the district, especially on the male employment side. Further job losses in the coal mining industry at Dailly could not be met at Grangestone without further significant expansion of industry at that estate.
I am really putting forward two propositions. The first is that Dailly is a community worth preserving. The second is that we need Government help over and above that which is available at present.
I must emphasise the importance of maintaining Dailly as a living community. It is a small village peopled by men and women of high quality who value the comradeship, loyalty and social responsibility that is part of their way of life, and something peculiar to mining communities. Naturally, although recognising that their way of earning a living will

change with the years, they wish to retain and pass on the social ethos which makes this village important to all who know it.
Last Saturday I attended a joint branch meeting between the Maxwell men and the Dalquharran men at which the district secretary of the NUM and members of the executive discussed with me the problems involved in the colliery closure. It is a significant pointer to the quality of the people involved that in the middle of that meeting of men with their own human problems, one of the items raised by one of the men, who has a redundancy threat hanging over him, was what contribution Dalquharran and Maxwell collieries were able to make to the Sea-field disaster fund. Even in the midst of their own difficulties the men there had sufficient compassion and humanity to think about mining families on the other side of Scotland.
I must emphasise the importance of maintaining Dailly as a living community. If it is to escape from the break up which can follow loss of a basic employment or loss of confidence in the future there must be Government action to bring new male-employing industry to Grangestone.
This brings me to my second proposition, that additional Government help is now required. I think the Minister would agree that conditions are such at present that it is fair to ask the Government for action to "direct"—I put the word in quotation marks—industry to Grangestone. I put the word in quotation marks so as not to offend the ideological instincts of the Minister. It would not be new for the Conservatives to direct industry to certain areas of Scotland. I can remember the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) boasting how they managed to do so in relation to Wiggins, Teape. The Minister will boast of growth in the United Kingdom economy; there has been considerable expansion in the South-East, the Midlands and in East Anglia. There has been a much lesser pace of expansion evident in the Scottish economy. We need more of the benefits of growth directed to the Scottish economy, and within that exercise we can fairly claim attention for Girvan, which has always had unemployment well above the


national average. The Government are a powerful institution. They are big purchasers in industry and the source of big handouts to industry in all parts of the country. I want the Government to use the power to "direct" industry to Grangestone by using their influence to lean on private and public undertakings to shift to our area.
Because of the pressure of time I think I should now shift attention to the other part of South Ayrshire presently experiencing difficulties, and that is Cumnock, but before leaving Dailly I want to put a specific question to the Minister. It concerns the assistance available under the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, with which we are involved since joining the Common Market. My own personal view of the Common Market is totally irrelevant to this consideration, but since we are a contributor to the common agricultural policy and other Market policies I do not think it wrong that the Government, who boast of having entered the Common Market, should ask for something back from the Community in the form of the aid it gives. As I understand it, Community financial aid is available for areas facing difficulty with colliery closures and contraction of the mining industry; the purpose of the aid is to help in retraining men and improving the infrastructure.
If my information is broadly correct, will the Government make a specific request to the Commission for funds to be used in the Girvan-Dailly area? I can assure the Minister that the local authorities would quickly respond with schemes to improve the infrastructure and communications. Communications are an important matter; we need better communications with the north of the county, towards Hunterston, where we confidently expect big developments this year for the planning decision of the Government.
I turn to the question of Cumnock. I shall try to cover the whole of my constituency—about 700 square miles. It is not an easy task, but I shall try. When I say "Cumnock" I have to be careful, because it refers to the town and district—a number of villages and communities in the northern part of my constituency. When I say "Cumnock" I embrace a much wider area than the burgh itself.
I mean the whole of Local Government Area No. 5, which the Cumnock growth area has always been intended to serve.
The town council and the county council have been most vigorous in pursuit of new industry, and they have had some terrible experiences associated with pit closures in this area also. People have shown a remarkable determination to widen the structural base of the local economy. They have had their successes. Indeed, Cumnock town council is widely recognised as one of the most advanced and progressive small burgh burghs in the country. Everything that local authorities can do has been done in this area, to make it an attractive proposition to industrialists. The town of Cumnock itself is exceptionally well planned and a most pleasant place to live. Housing is readily available for key workers, educational provision is of the highest standard, there is redevelopment and improvement in every village, the whole area abounds with recreational opportunities and is set in a wonderful environment. Inevitably, such an effort is rewarded with success, and we can see the fruits of these efforts in the Caponacre industrial estate and in factories as widely spread as New Cumnock, Catrine and Drongan. In the last few weeks, however, much of the job build-up over many years has been undercut by two industrial decisions.
First, we lost over 30 jobs at a carpet factory at the beginning of June, and last week we had an announcement that the Bankend Mill will be run down and ultimately closed, with an eventual job loss of 225. I know that the management at Bankend is in discussions with the trade unions, and that it has given considerable notice of its intentions to the workers and the local authority. Although no one welcomes the decision of the company to move its whole operations to Yorkshire, I suppose we can be grateful to have received timely warning. It is a small mercy in a situation where a firm which has used the labour of Cumnock people since 1948—not unprofitably, one can safely assume—has now decided to waltz off. The practical situation is that we have been given notice of a gap that will need to be filled in 12 to 18 months' time. It is a considerable employment gap, and we are looking to the Government for action to help fill it.
Although it has not suffered the same level of unemployment as Girvan, Cumnock has always suffered from high unemployment in past years. The economy of the area is still heavily dependent on the coal industry, and in our view it is a candidate for more Government assistance than we have been receiving over the past few years. We should like the DTI to find a suitable tenant for the building which Bankend Mill presently occupies. The company will be a willing seller if the DTI can assist in finding a willing buyer. We would also like to see the Government show their faith in Cumnock's industrial future by building another advance factory at Caponacre.
It is easier to get an industrialist in the early stages to look at a factory of 20,000 to 30,000 square feet than to interest him in 80,000 square feet, which is the area of Bankend. Action of that sort would be most welcome. I have previously set out the self-help undertaken by the local authorities, and I am now asking for equivalent Government action to meet our urgent need for an injection of new industry into the Cumnock district.
The Minister should know that, although having received the set-backs mentioned, there is no loss of spirit in the Cumnock area. There is no danger of our drowning in despondency. I am coming to the Minister early, rather than after the horse has bolted. The people in the district have experience of setbacks. Anyone who has lived in a mining community has built into his nervous system an ability to face setbacks. This applies to Cumnock, where people are not easily knocked off balance.
What exists are communities that wish to see their district flourish; people who want to see their children enjoy wide and interesting job opportunities in their own area, not Australia. New Zealand or England; people who know the large contribution their councils have made to create the local conditions for growth; and who look to the Government to make their contribution to maintaining the life of the area.
As there is still time available before I give way to the Minister, I will take the opportunity of drawing his attention to the needs of two other areas—Maybole, and the Doon Valley.
Maybole is within the Ayr employment exchange area, and many of the people work in Ayr, in Kilmarnock and in Irvine. I cannot see that pattern being disturbed, but there is a need to recognise that Maybole requires more industry than it presently has to maintain a health local economy. It has to be borne in mind that Maybole is the centre of a catchment area which covers a large part of South Ayrshire.
As with the other towns mentioned it has to its credit a go-ahead town council, ably led by its Labour Provost, Willie Cuthbert, now in his second term, in recognition of his outstanding achievements for the town. The council has helped to establish a number of employers in the town, but it is naturally anxious to continue with progress. I would ask the Minister to place Maybole high on his list when the Government announce their next advance factory programme. Too often, Maybole feels that it is left off official maps, and official thinking. I ask the Minister to put it on the advance factory map as soon as possible.
Finally, I come to the Doon Valley, again heavily dependent on coal mining for employment, and which must look for alternatives at the Mosshill industrial estate. The Minister knows that we have recently been informed that a tenant has been found for the first advance factory at Mosshill. He also knows that I have pressed him to expand the estate immediately with the construction of another advance factory. I hope that it will not be long before he can give me a positive response to this reasonable request.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Doon Valley's coal industry, where we are concerned about the future, say, some four or five years from now. Will he look at the position with the National Coal Board, get the facts from the board, and lay his contingency plans now, perhaps taking aid from Community funds in a similar approach to that suggested for the Girvan-Dailly area, and start the infrastructure improvements which we must have to attract new industry into that valley in my constituency?
I thank the Minister for his patience in listening to me.

12.26 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on securing the Adjournment debate this evening and also on the most sensible use he has made of that opportunity. He will understand if I do not enter into a discussion concerning Maybole and the Doon Valley. He has registered his point. His request for extra assistance I will refer both to the Scottish Office—and we have present with us a Scottish Minister in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—and also to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry concerned particularly with industrial policy.
I therefore turn particularly to the problems of South Ayrshire, which, in recent years, has suffered from relatively high unemployment and from an unbalanced industrial structure, as I would be the first to recognise.
At present the rates of unemployment in the Girvan, Ayr and Cumnock areas are around the level for Scotland as a whole, but still well above the Great Britain average. The main source of difficulty is, of course, an excessive dependence on coal mining for male employment. This has been recognised for some time—indeed, Girvan was one of the original SDAs in 1967—and efforts have been made under Governments of both political colours to diversify the industrial base and provide a wider range of job opportunities. In this work my Department has co-operated closely with the local authorities and, with the benefit of the various regional incentives that have been available, significant results have been achieved. Firms involved in such diverse activities as distilling, chemicals, ladies' underwear, assembly of moulding and encapsulation machinery, and metal finishing have been attracted to the Grangestone industrial estate at Girvan, for instance. I am delighted to be able to tell the House about that. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is pleased to be able to welcome these industries into his constituency.
This estate now provides some 550 jobs altogether, while 700 are employed on the Caponacre Estate at Cumnock. But this is an uphill struggle. Nothing could

demonstrate that more clearly than the closure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The closure of Maxwell Colliery on 12th July again highlights features of a situation which can arise so quickly in the coalmining industry. I suppose that it is in that industry alone that this situation—I was about to use the phrase "flare up" but, being concerned with heating, that would be inappropriate—can arise and form the difficulties.
The hazards of the industry are known to us all. The problems of Ayr are known to my Department. I know the extent of the concern of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, who represents the constituency of Ayr. Although geographically next door, he is still ultimately concerned with the whole problem, as is the hon. Gentleman.
Apart from the dangers to life and limb in the problem which has arisen in the Maxwell Colliery, there are also the uncertainties associated with geological factors, of which Maxwell is a particular example.
The closure of this colliery has come about suddenly and will have an effect on the relatively small community of Dailly. I accept that immediately. The unavoidable suddenness of the closure makes it worse. However, there is no question of all the men involved immediately finding themselves unemployed. The usual period of notice of redundancy will be observed. Some men may be employed for a term on salvage work, and possibilities of redeployment to other pits will be explored. In all this there will, as usual, be close co-operation between the NCB and the unions and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, negotiations are taking place to deal with that particular matter.
It is, perhaps, one slightly redeeming feature of this particular closure that the number of men involved is relatively small, when one thinks of the very much larger pits throughout the country. Nevertheless, I would not for a moment suggest that that diminishes the problem for individual families. It is a real problem even if it concerns only one family. It is a major problem which has to be faced.
Therefore, it is no easy matter with this loss of employment at a familiar workplace for many of these men who have given many years of work if not all of their life's work to their pit. There is the need, therefore, for each individual concerned to readjust himself, and to make the readjustment to a completely new set of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has explained with great clarity the prospect before a group of men and their dependants situated in what some would describe as an isolated community, deprived of the opportunity, through no fault of their own, to continue working, in the industry of their choice.
I should like, therefore, to assure the hon. Gentleman that I and the Government as a whole are fully conscious of the difficulties that beset mineworkers as a result of colliery closures. There is little need for me to remind the House, however, of the massive financial aid recently provided by the Government to the industry under the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1973. Under that Act powers were taken to make schemes for men becoming redundant in the industry up to March 1976 and, by parliamentary permission, they can be extended to 1978. The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry proposes shortly to present to the House for approval the draft order of a new redundant mineworkers payments scheme, the main features of which were indicated by the Minister for Industry in May. I reiterate this only because it is important that the men in the pit should realise that they will benefit from the new redundancy payments scheme, although it has not yet been laid before the House. It will be some slight compensation to them to know that they will benefit from its much more generous terms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make certain that no one, and they in particular, will be in any doubt about that matter.
I believe that the new schemes, whilst not as great as everybody would like, are, on the whole, much more generous than previously and, therefore, will be of some help. It must be right to consider the prospects of the men concerned finding new jobs, and we must look at the Girvan area as a whole. There are some hopeful signs. Unemployment has been falling rapidly and it now stands at less than half

the level of the beginning of the year. Part of this sharp fall is, no doubt, seasonal; but even compared with the position in June last year it is appreciably better. The second DTI advance factory at Grangestone was allocated in May to Century Aluminium, which will eventually provide 50 jobs, mostly for men. Production, I am able to announce, will begin next month. That may have been known, but I can now say it officially.
I do not wish to minimise the problems. Certainly no one can pretend that the prospects are excellent, but the area is certainly in a better position to stand the impact of the Maxwell closure than it was recently, last year or the year before last.
It would be right to emphasise that whilst the hon. Gentleman has asked that the DTI should "direct"—I accept the hon. Gentleman's inverted commas—industry to locate in Dailly or the Girvan area, he will realise that it really does no good, either to the community or to our policy of helping the regions or the areas of high unemployment, to direct—without the inverted commas—or twist the arm of industry to locate against its will because too often it only fails, and then the situation is made that much worse by a company not really working and having to pull out. It makes the situation doubly bad because it becomes a recurring factor.
With the little time left, I ought to turn to the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the closure of John Foster and Son Ltd. at Cumnock. Clearly this announcement must come as a blow to the Cumnock area and, of course, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has felt it necessary to widen the debate in the way that he has. I can assure him that my Department considered the implications and alternatives very closely before granting permission for the development—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.